get_commit_detail

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the return format (raw unified diff text) and what the "files" mode omits, which is genuinely useful. However, it says nothing about permissions, diff-size limits/truncation for large commits, or how include/exclude patterns interact with file_path.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single compact sentence, front-loaded with the primary output format and then the alternate mode. Minor awkwardness in the quoted "detail:"files"" fragment, but no wasted text.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For an 8-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the two output shapes but omits how context_lines, file_path, and include/exclude_patterns affect the result, and says nothing about limits on large diffs. Adequate but with clear gaps given the parameter count.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is already high at 75%, so the baseline is 3, and the description earns a bump by explaining the meaning of the detail enum: "files" yields the changed-file list without diff bodies while the default produces the full diff. That adds behavioral meaning to the enum beyond the terse schema text "Default diff".

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb and resource ("Get a commit diff") and immediately distinguishes its two output modes (raw unified diff vs. file-only list). It is clearly the commit-level counterpart to the sibling get_pull_request_diff, though it never names that sibling explicitly to complete the differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It states the condition for the "files" mode ("no diff bodies"), which is useful selection guidance, but gives no direction on when to prefer this over get_pull_request_diff, get_file_content, or list_branch_commits. Usage is implied rather than stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.