get_commit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it discloses only returned content. It does not state that this is a read-only operation, whether authentication or specific permissions are needed, how max_diff_lines truncation behaves, or what happens when with_diff is false.

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 that names the tool and its outputs without filler. Every element earns its place by telling the agent what data the call returns.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the return components: commit details, author info, stats, changed files, and diffs. It does not explain the diff truncation behavior or the effect of with_diff=false, but those are covered by the fully documented input schema, so only minor gaps remain.

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 100%, so all five parameters, including the token-blowout warning on file_path and the max_diff_lines default, are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the phrase 'selective file diffs,' which vaguely maps to file_path but supplies no syntax or semantics beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 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 names a specific verb (Get) and resource (commit) and enumerates the returned data: details, author info, stats, changed file list, and selective diffs. It clearly distinguishes the tool from generic content access, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling list_commits or otherwise name an alternative, so it is clear without sibling routing.

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 states what the tool returns but gives no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as list_commits or get_file_contents. There are no when-to-use conditions, no exclusions, and no prerequisites mentioned.

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