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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds real value beyond them: it discloses ordering (newest first), the source ('persistent commit log'), and the contents of each entry. It stops short of describing pagination or what happens when limit exceeds available commits.

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, front-loaded with the identity of the resource and its returned fields, with the usage/UX hint placed second. The parenthetical field list and dashboard instruction both earn their space, though the second sentence is slightly long.

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 spelled out, and the description is still self-sufficient for a read-only list tool. The only real omission is any guidance on the limit parameter, which neither the description nor the schema covers.

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% and there are 2 parameters. The description implies a bounded list ('recent commits') but never explains the limit parameter, its default of 10, or whether project_id is required/its format — so the schema-side gap is not compensated.

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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (commits/version history) and enumerates the returned fields (hash, message, status, timestamp) plus ordering (newest first). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like dreamagent_commit_push or dreamagent_get_file_diff without opening a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit purpose ('use it to review what changed and when') and a concrete downstream workflow (tell the user the short hash so they can restore from the dashboard UI). It does not state when not to use it or name an alternative listing tool, but no close alternative exists among the siblings.

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