git_log_repo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'Show', which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, nor does it mention requirements like a valid Git repository, potential side effects, or any limitations on what 'recent' means.

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 brief, which might be considered efficient, but it omits essential details. It is under-specified rather than appropriately concise—there is no front-loading of critical constraints, and the single sentence provides minimal value beyond the tool name.

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 simplicity of the tool, a one-line description could be sufficient in a richer context, but here the schema and annotations are empty, and no output schema exists. The description fails to cover parameter semantics, expected behavior, or output format, leaving the agent with too little information to invoke the tool 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% (no descriptions in the input schema) and the description does not mention either parameter (repo_path or max_entries). The agent receives no guidance on what these parameters mean, their default values, or how they affect the output. The description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Show recent commit history.' This clearly conveys the tool's intent and is not a tautology. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like git_repo_status or git_diff_repo, but the resource is distinct enough for a capable agent to infer the purpose.

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 git_repo_status or git_diff_repo. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferred. The agent is left without contextual cues beyond the basic title.

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