List commits

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond this: commits are returned newest first, pagination is exposed via has_more, and response_format controls markdown vs json output. This goes beyond the safety profile already covered by annotations.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: a one-sentence purpose, a compact parameter list, a return shape, and two practical examples. Every section earns its place without unnecessary verbosity.

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?

The tool has six optional parameters, a complete schema, and rich annotations. The description compensates for the missing output schema by specifying the exact return object shape including commits fields. Examples cover both simple and branch-specific usage, making the tool fully callable without additional inference.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents every parameter. The description restates parameters and adds a couple of illustrative examples, but it does not substantially enrich meaning beyond the schema, so 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Lists a branch's commits, newest first.' This clearly identifies the operation and distinguishes it from sibling tools like forgejo_list_branches, which lists branches rather than commits.

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 includes clear usage examples such as 'what changed recently' and 'history of the migration branch', which indicate when to call the tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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