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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description earns credit for adding pagination size (30 a page), sort order (newest first), and concrete error semantics (FAILED_PRECONDITION causes). The 'volumes keep their current data' note is useful rollback side-effect 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 purpose is front-loaded, but the paragraph is dense and some clauses are garbled, e.g. "with whether the files are at it and its last deploy," which costs clarity. Rollback guidance is useful but competes with the primary list semantics in one run-on block.

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, the description carries the return-value burden and does partially disclose what comes back (commit list with deploy/file state). Error conditions and pagination are covered; only project_id semantics and a cleaner return description are missing.

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 50%: before_commit is documented in the schema itself, but project_id is undocumented in both places. The description references before_commit only indirectly ("not on it") and adds no format or usage detail beyond the schema, so baseline 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 names a specific verb (list) and resource (a github project's branch commits) and even scopes it to commits that change the directory. It is distinguishable from siblings like DeployProject or GetProject, though the phrasing is telegraphic and includes unrelated rollback context that muddies the core purpose.

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?

It gives clear conditions for the related rollback path (use DeployProject with an older commit) and enumerates the FAILED_PRECONDITION causes, which is genuinely actionable routing guidance. It lacks an explicit statement of when NOT to call it, but the alternatives are named.

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