get_commit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says it 'gets details' and does not mention whether it is read-only, requires authentication, or what happens for invalid refs. Since no annotations are available, this lack of transparency is a significant gap.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It earns its place by stating the core action and a key detail ('including files changed'). Perfectly concise for the tool's simplicity.

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 the simplicity (3 required parameters, no output schema), the description provides a minimal but adequate overview. It identifies the target and a notable output element, but does not fully elaborate on what 'details' includes or the return shape. It is acceptable for a basic get tool but leaves room for ambiguity.

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 only 33% (only 'ref' is described). The tool description does not compensate: it mentions 'specific commit' but does not explain the role of 'owner', 'repo', or 'ref' beyond what the schema already states. It adds no parameter-level semantics, so value over the schema is minimal.

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 states the tool's function: 'Get details of a specific commit including files changed'. This uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('specific commit'), and differentiates it from siblings like list_commits (which lists multiple commits) and get_commit_diff (which focuses on diffs). It is unambiguous and distinct.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_commits or get_commit_diff. There is no explicit context or exclusion, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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