git_git_log

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

No annotations exist, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, default behavior when parameters are null, or output format. It is insufficient for a tool with no 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?

The description is very short (one sentence) and front-loaded, but it sacrifices necessary detail. It is concise but not appropriately informative.

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 tool's 3 parameters, no annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is too sparse. It fails to provide context about output or parameter usage, making it incomplete for effective agent usage.

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 has 3 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain any of them. The agent receives no help understanding what 'n', 'oneline', or 'repo_dir' mean.

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 the verb 'show' and resource 'recent commit history', indicating it retrieves git commit log. The '[git]' prefix helps contextualize it. However, 'recent' is ambiguous and could be more precise.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like git_git_status or git_git_diff. The description does not mention prerequisites or typical use cases.

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