Git log

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the safety burden. 'Return' clearly signals a read-only operation and 'safe path' hints at path restrictions, but 'safe' is undefined and there is no mention of permissions, failure modes, or what exactly 'safe' means in this 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?

One sentence, no filler, and the key purpose is front-loaded. It is appropriately concise for a simple read-only log tool.

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 description is too terse relative to a 0%-coverage schema and absent annotations. It fails to mention the required `project` parameter, the `limit` behavior, or clarify the vague 'safe path' constraint. The output schema helps with return structure but does not compensate for these input-side gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only alludes to the optional path parameter via 'scoped to one safe path'; the required `project` parameter and the `limit` parameter are not explained at all.

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 ('Return') and resource ('recent commit metadata'), making the core purpose clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like git_status or git_diff, but the commit-history focus is evident from the name and object.

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?

Usage is implied: use this tool to inspect recent commit metadata, optionally filtered by path. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over git_status, git_diff, or git_branch_list, nor does it provide exclusions or alternative routing.

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