Get a commit

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

Annotations already declare read-only and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope by saying the commit must be "public" and can be referenced by UUID or link, though it does not describe error behavior or what the returned commit contains.

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 definition is a single short sentence with no wasted text and the resource scope is front-loaded. It is slightly telegraphic, but it remains readable and efficient.

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?

For a simple one-parameter lookup with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety/open-world behavior, the description is largely complete. The main omission is that it does not clarify the shape of the returned commit, though no output schema exists to compensate.

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 schema has 100% description coverage and already documents the single `commit` parameter as a UUID or `/dev/null` link. The description reinforces those accepted identifier forms but adds no syntax or format details beyond the schema, so baseline 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 states a specific retrieval action for a single `/dev/null` commit and identifies accepted lookup forms (UUID or link). It is clear enough to distinguish this from a list operation, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as `devnull_list_commits`.

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 implies use for a single commit via the word "One," but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or conditions for choosing this over `devnull_list_commits` or other commit-related siblings. The agent must infer the selection rule.

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