git_log_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool returns a dict with commits or an error for non-git repos, and mentions the output includes line additions/removals. It does not discuss performance implications or edge cases, but the behavior is adequately transparent for a simple read-only tool.

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 extremely concise: a one-sentence summary of functionality, followed by parameter explanations and return type. Every sentence is essential and well-structured, with no redundant 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?

Given the tool's low complexity and absence of output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what it does, what it returns, and a basic failure mode. It does not detail the exact structure of the returned dict, but this is implied by the summary. Overall, it is sufficiently complete 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?

The description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% coverage. It explains that 'path' is the filesystem path to a git repo root and 'count' is the number of recent commits, including default behavior. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of 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 states the tool summarizes recent git commits with specific fields (author, date, message, lines added/removed). It is well-distinguished from siblings such as find_large_files, repo_stats, and tech_stack, which serve different purposes.

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 specifies the tool is for summarizing recent commits and includes a prerequisite (the path must be a git repo). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives among siblings, which would strengthen guidance.

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