get_commit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that both full and short hashes are accepted and lists the specific fields returned (commit message, author/committer identities, timestamps, parent IDs, verification status). This gives agents a clear expectation of the tool's output without overpromising. It doesn't mention auth or error handling, but for a read-only tool this is reasonable.

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?

The description is two sentences with no unnecessary words. The first sentence clearly states the action and target, and the second enumerates the return values. It is front-loaded and every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and output.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by listing the key return fields. It clarifies the hash parameter's allowed formats and the scope of the tool (single commit details). While it doesn't cover edge cases like invalid hashes or error responses, for a simple fetch tool the description is sufficiently complete to guide correct invocation and interpretation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the important semantic that 'hash' accepts both full and short forms, which is not present in the schema. This directly enhances the agent's understanding of the parameter. Owner and project are only described as aliases in the schema, but the description doesn't add more, though the context is sufficient.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get detailed information') and a clear resource ('specific commit by its hash'), distinguishing it from siblings like list_commits, get_commit_files, and diff_commits. It also specifies the lookup method (full or short hash), making the tool's function unambiguous.

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?

The description implies the usage context: use this when you have a commit hash and need detailed commit information. It doesn't explicitly reference alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent would know when to select this tool over list_commits or get_commit_files. No exclusions are stated, but they are not necessary for this specific tool.

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