Mooring

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions line range support, which is useful, but omits details about output format (text vs structured), what specific information git blame returns (author, commit hash, timestamp), or error conditions when the file doesn't exist.

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 efficiently structured with the core purpose in the first sentence, constraints in the second, and a clear Args section documenting parameters. No words are wasted; every sentence earns its place by conveying essential information not present in the structured schema fields.

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?

Given that an output schema exists (per context signals), the description appropriately does not need to explain return values. It adequately covers the 4 parameters and basic operation for a git blame tool. A minor gap is the lack of mention regarding whether the tool requires git to be installed or specific repository states.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by documenting all 4 parameters in the Args section. It adds meaningful semantics such as 'relative to repo root' for file_path and notes the optional nature of line numbers, providing sufficient context for the agent to use the tool correctly.

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 clearly identifies the tool as performing 'Git blame' with optional line range support, which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'repo_diff' (which shows changes) or 'repo_log' (which shows history), leaving the agent to infer that blame shows line-level authorship.

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 provides one important constraint ('File path must be within the repository'), but lacks explicit guidance on when to use blame versus alternatives like repo_diff or repo_log. The guideline is implied by the function name rather than explicitly stated.

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