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. It only states the action without disclosing output format, whether it returns the diff relative to the parent commit, size limits, or auth requirements.

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 filler. Every word serves a purpose, but it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, making it efficient yet somewhat under-specified.

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?

Without an output schema or annotations, the description should explain what 'raw diff' means and whether it's the commit's changes vs. cumulative. It also doesn't address potential large diffs or response format.

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 describes only `ref` (33% coverage), and the description adds no parameter-specific guidance. Owner and repo are left undefined, and the description doesn't clarify how `ref` maps to a commit.

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 ('Get') and resource ('raw diff of a Commit'), making the core function clear. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_commit and get_pr_diff through the specific 'raw diff' phrasing, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 context is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_pr_diff or get_commit. There are no exclusions or usage scenarios, leaving the agent to infer 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.