get_project_commits

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only repeats the basic function without mentioning any side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or behavior such as ordering and pagination. The schema provides parameter details but the description adds no behavioral context beyond what is already in the schema.

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, short sentence (5 words) that is front-loaded and to the point. It is not verbose, but could be slightly more detailed without losing conciseness. The structure is appropriate for a simple tool.

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 complexity (13 parameters, no output schema, many sibling tools), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of commit objects) or how it relates to get_commit for individual commits. The lack of output schema and behavioral context leaves gaps for the agent.

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% with clear descriptions for all 13 parameters. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. The baseline for high coverage is 3, and the description does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 'List repository commits with filtering options' clearly states the action (list) and the resource (repository commits). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_commit (single commit) and list_merge_requests (merge requests) by specifying it lists commits with filtering capabilities.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_commit for a single commit or list_merge_requests for merge request diffs. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or when-not-to-use scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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