get_git_context

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 mentions 'recent' but does not define the recency window, nor does it describe side effects, error conditions (e.g., file not found), or authentication requirements. The agent has insufficient behavioral context for safe invocation.

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 concise sentence with no fluff. However, it could be restructured to front-load critical information (e.g., return type) without losing brevity. A score of 4 reflects efficient use of words but room for structural improvement.

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?

Despite low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is incomplete. It does not specify the return format (e.g., structured list, summary object), pagination behavior, or how to interpret 'recent'. The agent lacks enough information to use results correctly.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage for parameters. The description adds 'file or symbol' to explain the parameter's semantic type, but it does not clarify format (e.g., full path vs relative, symbol naming convention). For a single parameter, more elaboration is expected to ensure correct input.

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 that the tool returns 'Recent authors, commits, and blame summary for a file or symbol', specifying the verb (retrieve), resource (git context), and input (file or symbol). This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_symbol or analyze_impact.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify prerequisites, conditions, or exclude scenarios (e.g., when a file is not in a git repository). The agent must 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.