Get review git URL

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false; the description goes beyond them by stating the failure mode (404 when git history is disabled) and clarifying the scope of read-only ("no push, no branching"). It also explains the shape of the returned history, which the annotations cannot convey.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the return value, followed by the availability constraint and the safety note. Every clause carries information an agent needs; nothing is padding.

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?

With no output schema, the description must explain the return value, and it does (a git clone URL with one commit per round plus a live tip, usable by standard git tooling). It also covers availability and the 404 failure mode. Only minor details, such as whether the URL embeds credentials or expires, are unstated.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ("the opaque review id"), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about the id — such as whether it accepts a short id or slug — so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Returns a git clone URL for a review's history" names a specific verb (returns) and a specific resource (a git clone URL), and the follow-on clause explains exactly what that URL points at (one commit per past round plus a live tip). An agent can distinguish this from get_history or get_source without opening a schema, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 gives a real precondition — the server must have git-tracked history enabled, otherwise the call returns 404 — which tells the agent when the tool will succeed. It does not, however, point to alternatives such as get_history or get_source for agents that want the review's rounds without cloning, leaving the routing choice implied.

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