get_file_blame

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds detail on output structure (each entry maps lines to commit info) and usage of range parameters. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Two sentences conveying essential information without redundancy. The description is front-loaded with the main action and then adds output details and parameter usage.

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 simple read-only tool with annotations and full schema coverage, the description provides sufficient context about output format and optional parameters. No output schema exists, but the description compensates.

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 documents parameters with 100% coverage. The description reinforces the use of range_start/range_end for limiting blame, adding value beyond the schema.

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 'Get git blame for a file at a given ref', specifying the action, resource, and context. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_commit or get_file_contents by focusing on blame.

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 explains optional range parameters for limiting lines but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. The context is clear.

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