Git show

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds that output is bounded, which is useful context beyond annotations, but it does not explain truncation behavior, default diff inclusion, or what happens when max_bytes is exceeded.

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 wasted words. However, for a six-parameter tool, it is arguably too terse to be considered fully well-structured.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained by the description. But with six parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete: it gives no parameter semantics, no usage guidance, and no behavioral detail beyond the single word 'bounded'.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across six parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It hints at a revision and bounded output, but leaves path, paths, include_diff, context_lines, and the max_bytes limits undocumented.

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 says it returns git show output for a revision, which is a specific operation but largely restates the tool name and title. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like git_diff, git_log, or git_blame, leaving the agent to infer when git_show is the right choice.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as git_diff, git_log, or git_blame. The description provides no context, exclusions, or workflow cues beyond the operation itself.

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