get_commits

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states 'Get recent commits.' No disclosure of ordering, pagination, what constitutes 'recent,' rate limits, or required permissions. The behavioral traits are entirely opaque.

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 concise (one sentence), but this comes at the cost of crucial information. It is not fluff, but it is under-specified for the task of tool invocation.

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 three parameters and the existence of an output schema (not shown), the description is incomplete. It does not explain how parameters affect results, what the 'limit' defaults to, or what the output contains. The tool is not fully documented for an agent to use correctly.

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 the description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names. While 'repo' and 'limit' are somewhat self-explanatory, 'owner' is ambiguous (repository owner or committer?). The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 identifies the action ('Get') and resource ('recent commits') and specifies the scope ('for a repository'). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like list_repos or repo_stats, which might be related to repository data.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The description is insufficient for an agent to decide between this and similar tools like get_file or list_issues.

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