get_commit

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the description's 'Get' aligns with a safe read operation. However, the description does not add any additional behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. With openWorldHint also present, the description could clarify potential side effects but does not.

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 short sentence, which is very concise. However, it is also very minimal and could benefit from additional context. It earns a 4 for being concise and front-loaded, but not perfect due to lack of detail.

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?

Given the good schema coverage and readOnly annotation, the description is minimally sufficient for a simple get operation. However, there is no output schema, so the agent does not know what details are returned. More context would improve completeness.

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 100% description coverage for all three parameters (sha, stats, project_id). The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 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 details of a specific commit' clearly states the action (get) and the resource (details of a specific commit). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_commits' (which lists multiple commits) and 'get_commit_diff' (which gets the diff).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that for a diff, one should use 'get_commit_diff', or for listing commits, use 'list_commits'. The usage context is completely absent.

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