get_commit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description reinforces that reading does not mutate GitLab data. It additionally documents error behavior for missing resources, invalid identifiers, insufficient permission, and rate limits, which is useful context beyond the annotations. It stops short of fully describing the success return shape, but the safety and error profile is well covered.

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 concise and well-structured: it leads with purpose, gives usage guidance, then states safety and error semantics. Each sentence contributes useful information without 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?

The description is sufficiently complete for a simple, read-only 3-parameter tool: it covers intended use, error behavior, and identifier requirements. The absence of an output schema means the return shape is not explicitly described, but the tool name and 'Get details of a specific commit' provide enough context for selection and invocation.

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 documents all 3 parameters, so the description does not need to repeat their semantics. It only adds generic ID/path guidance and mentions 'project_id or group_id' even though only project_id appears in this schema, plus a generic pagination reference. Schema coverage is sufficient, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 states a clear verb+resource combination: 'Get details of a specific commit.' It also communicates that the tool is for a known commit or result rather than for discovery, which distinguishes it from sibling list/search tools.

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 gives explicit guidance: use this tool when you have a known resource or result, and use the corresponding list or search tool when you need to discover multiple resources. This clearly routes an agent between get_commit and discovery-oriented siblings like list_commits.

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