get_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether this is a read-only operation (though likely), how results are ordered, whether pagination is handled via the limit parameter, or what output is returned. The existence of an output schema does not compensate for the lack of explicit behavioral context.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the core action and optionality. There is zero redundancy. It is appropriately brief for a tool whose primary behavior is self-evident from the name, even though it lacks detail in other dimensions.

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 has four parameters and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the default behavior (e.g., limit=50, revision=HEAD), the nature of the returned commit history (e.g., format, ordering), or any prerequisites. The output schema may clarify returns, but the tool's usage context is under-specified, leaving agents to guess about crucial execution details.

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%, and the description only hints at the 'path' parameter ('optionally scoped to a path'). It does not explain the semantics of 'limit' (pagination), 'revision' (which revision to start from), or 'project_id' (the target project). The schema provides defaults but not meaning, so the description falls short of compensating for the parameter documentation 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 clearly states the action ('Get commit history'), the resource (project), and an optional scope (path). This is specific enough to distinguish from get_revision (a single revision) and get_diff (differences), though it does not explicitly name sibling tools. The purpose is unambiguous, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 like get_revision, get_diff, or list_changes. It does not mention contexts such as reviewing history before a merge or comparing revisions. No exclusions or conditions are given, so agents must infer usage from the name alone.

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