Search commit messages

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety burden is offloaded. The description usefully adds behavior the annotations cannot convey: case-insensitive matching and newest-first result ordering. Return-field enumeration is partly redundant given the output schema, but the ordering default is real added 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, no filler. Every clause (case-insensitivity, filters, ordering, return shape) carries information.

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 full schema coverage, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description is sufficient for correct invocation. The only shortfall is the unstated relationship to sibling query tools, which would help an agent choose between them.

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 the schema already documents all six parameters in detail. The description's mention of author and date filtering adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource ('Search commit messages') and adds scope detail: case-insensitive matching, optional author/date filters, newest-first ordering. It is distinct from commit_details by implication, but never names a sibling to differentiate explicitly, keeping it just below a 5.

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 implies usage through the filters it mentions, but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and does not route the agent away from similar siblings such as commit_details or find_change. Usage is inferable, not stated.

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