git_diff_unstaged

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds the unstaged-scope detail, but does not disclose output format, error behavior, or how it handles an empty diff. This is consistent with annotations and provides modest value.

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 or redundant detail. It states the core behavior clearly and economically, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

For a simple read-only git operation, the description is minimally viable: it communicates scope and is consistent with annotations. However, it leaves parameter semantics and output format entirely to inference, and it could usefully mention that the output is a diff between the working tree and the index.

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 description does not mention either repo_path or context_lines, and schema description coverage is 0%. The parameter names and types are somewhat self-explanatory, especially repo_path, but context_lines' meaning (number of context lines around each diff hunk) is left implicit and the description adds no parameter-level guidance.

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 ('Shows') and a precise resource ('changes in the working directory that are not yet staged'), which clearly differentiates this tool from its sibling git_diff_staged. An agent can immediately understand both what the tool does and what scope it covers.

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 phrase 'not yet staged' provides clear context for when this tool is appropriate: when an agent needs to inspect working-tree changes that have not been added to the index. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, though the sibling list makes the comparison available.

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