get_commit_diff

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation via 'Get' but does not explain the return format, whether the diff is truncated by default, what happens for empty diffs, or any permissions required. This thin description leaves an agent without critical behavioral expectations.

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 a single, scannable sentence with no filler words. The phrase 'changes/diffs' is mildly redundant and could be more precise, but overall it is efficiently structured and front-loaded.

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 and no annotations, the description should explain what a caller actually receives—such as a list of file changes, patch text, or stats—and how full_diff affects the result. The current text is too sparse to fully prepare an agent, especially given the large number of diff-related sibling tools.

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?

The input schema fully describes all three parameters with meaningful details, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds little parameter-level meaning and even slightly contradicts the schema by implying sha is only a commit hash when the schema explicitly allows branch or tag names.

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 clear verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('changes/diffs of a specific commit'), so an agent can tell it fetches diff-related data for a single commit. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_branch_diffs or get_merge_request_diffs, and 'changes/diffs' is a bit redundant, but the core purpose is clear.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_branch_diffs, get_commit, or get_merge_request_diffs. The description also narrows sha to 'a specific commit' while the schema permits branch or tag names, which could mislead an agent about acceptable inputs.

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