List repository commits

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds the optional ref/path/time-range scoping but does not mention pagination, sorting defaults, or response size. With annotations, the added value is moderate, hitting the baseline for a read-only listing tool.

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 sentence that is clear, front-loaded, and contains no fluff. Every word earns its place, efficiently capturing the tool's core function and key options.

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 12 parameters and an output schema (indicated as present), the description provides a high-level overview but omits details on sorting, pagination, and boolean flags. It is adequate for an initial understanding but not fully complete for a tool of this complexity.

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?

With only 8% schema coverage (only project has a description), the description must compensate. It mentions ref, path, and time range, which covers ref_name, path, since/until, but leaves many parameters (all, trailers, with_stats, first_parent, page, per_page, order) unexplained. The added meaning is partial, not enough to fully compensate for low coverage.

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 uses a specific verb (List) and resource (commits) with clear optional scoping to ref, path, or time range. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_commit (single commit) and list_merge_request_commits (merge request specific), making the purpose unmistakable.

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 implies usage for listing commits on a project but does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives such as list_merge_request_commits or get_commit. No exclusions or explicit comparison is provided, only the intended scope.

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