get_commit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only says 'Get details' and does not disclose whether the operation is strictly read-only, what fields are returned, how errors are handled, or how optional parameters affect the response. The agent lacks important behavioral context.

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 concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and resource clearly, making it easy for an agent to scan and process 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description provides insufficient context about what 'details' includes or how to expect the response. The agent cannot determine the return shape or whether stats is included by default, making this incomplete for a tool with three parameters.

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 100%, so sha, stats, and project_id are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic meaning or relationships between parameters, so the 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 states a clear action and resource: 'Get details of a specific commit.' It is not a tautology and the agent can tell it is a retrieval operation. However, it does not differentiate from closely related siblings like get_commit_diff or list_commits, so the specific meaning of 'details' is ambiguous.

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 provides no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_commit_diff or list_commits. It does not mention contexts, exclusions, or preferred conditions, so the agent has to infer the right choice.

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