get_commits

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return type but does not declare side effects (e.g., read-only nature), authentication needs, or error conditions. The description adds context beyond the schema but is insufficient for a safe read operation.

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 front-loaded with a concise summary and then a structured docstring for parameters and returns. However, there is slight redundancy (first sentence repeats the summary). Overall clear and well-organized.

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 complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, output schema exists), the description covers all inputs and return structure. It lacks handling of edge cases (e.g., branch not found) or pagination details, but is sufficient for typical agent use.

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 0% description coverage, leaving parameters undefined. The description's docstring compensates fully with detailed explanations for all 7 parameters, including formats for ref (hash/branch), filters (substring match), and default for limit. This is critical for correct invocation.

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 retrieves commit history for a specified branch in the Bauplan data catalog. It specifies the resource (commits), action (retrieve), and scope (branch-specific). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_branches or get_tags.

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 the tool's purpose but does not explicitly instruct when to use it versus alternatives. It implies use for commit history retrieval but lacks exclusionary guidance or comparisons with siblings like get_branches.

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