Get Commits

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, read-only operation. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., pagination, date filtering, or return format). With annotations covering safety, the description meets but does not exceed the baseline.

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 short sentence with no wasted words, but it is overly terse. Conciseness should balance brevity with informativeness; here, the sentence is too minimal to be helpful. A longer description with essential parameter details would be more valuable.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It lacks information on pagination (page, per_page), date filtering (since, until), path filtering, and branch selection (ref_name). The agent cannot understand the tool's capabilities from this description alone.

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 does not explain any of the 7 parameters (project_id, page, per_page, since, until, ref_name, path). A tool with multiple filtering parameters requires the description to add meaning beyond the schema, but it fails to do so. The agent cannot infer parameter usage from the description.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'repository commits', with the scope 'for a project'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'gitlab_get_commit' (single commit) and 'gitlab_get_commit_diff' (diff), as well as code search tools.

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, no prerequisites, exclusions, or context about use cases. The agent receives no help in choosing between this and similar commit-related tools like 'gitlab_get_commit' or 'gitlab_search_code'.

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