linked_commits

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It explains the inference method (overlapping files with git log), result fields (SHA, subject, overlap count), and empty result condition. Missing details on performance or side effects, but sufficient for basic behavioral understanding.

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?

Three sentences are compact and front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence contributes value: purpose, usage instruction, and behavior clarification. No redundant text.

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 only one parameter and no annotations, the description covers purpose, input source, output content details, and empty result handling. Lacks explicit output structure description but inferred from text. Reasonably complete for a simple tool.

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 coverage is 100% with a single thread_id parameter described. Description adds context that threadId comes from search_threads, which is helpful but not critical beyond schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it lists git commits likely produced by a thread, with specific verb 'list' and resource 'git commits a thread likely PRODUCED'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_threads or get_thread by focusing on commit inference.

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?

Explicitly instructs to pass threadId from search_threads and notes that empty results occur if not yet computed (user must run `cal commits`). Provides clear context for when to use, though does not explicitly state when not to use.

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