get_commit_files

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly discloses the return contents (file paths, change types, added/removed line counts) and the limitation (no diff content). It does not mention error behavior or pagination, but for a straightforward read operation, this is acceptable.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no filler or redundant information. Every sentence adds value: what the tool does, what it returns, and what it does not do.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description adequately explains the return values and explicitly contrasts with diff_commits. It could improve by mentioning how it relates to other commit-level tools like get_commit, but the core information needed to select and invoke the tool is present.

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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter (hash, owner, project) already described in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('List all files changed in a specific commit') and clearly identifies the resource (files in a commit). It also differentiates from sibling tools by stating what it returns (paths, change types, line counts) and what it does not return, pointing to diff_commits for diff content.

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 explicitly provides usage guidance by stating 'Does not return the actual diff content — use diff_commits for that.' This names an alternative tool and clarifies when not to use this tool, which is sufficient even without broader context.

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