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. It only says 'Get a single commit' and does not disclose what is returned, whether it is read-only, or any behavioral nuances like response format or rate limits. The docs link points externally but does not add value within the description itself.

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 clear sentence followed by a documentation link. It is front-loaded with the essential purpose and contains no wasted words.

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?

This is a simple tool with complete schema parameter coverage, but there is no output schema or annotations. The description does not explain what the response contains, and with no output schema, the description should carry more responsibility for describing return values. Overall it is minimally viable but lacks contextual depth.

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 already provides full descriptions for all three parameters (owner, repo, ref), covering 100% of the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics 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 'Get a single commit in a GitHub repository' uses a specific verb and resource, and the word 'single' clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_commits. It establishes the exact scope (single commit) and context (GitHub repository).

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'single commit' – it suggests this tool is for retrieving a specific commit by ref rather than listing commits. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use it over alternatives or any exclusions or prerequisites.

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