Summarize Commit Range

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

Annotations declare the tool as read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds context about output behaviors (highlighting directories, flagging risky surfaces) beyond what annotations provide, supporting agent decisions.

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 immediately conveys the tool's core actions. Every phrase adds value with no redundancy.

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 moderate complexity (6 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately captures the tool's purpose and behavior but lacks parameter documentation. Annotations cover safety, but missing param explanations reduce completeness.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any parameters. While 'between two refs' hints at from_ref and to_ref, the meaning of straight, max_commits, and output_format is undocumented, forcing the agent to rely on parameter names or external knowledge.

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 tool's purpose: summarize changes between two refs, highlight affected directories, and flag risky surfaces. It uses specific verbs and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like gitlab_compare_refs or gitlab_get_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 implies usage for high-level summaries but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like gitlab_compare_refs or gitlab_get_commit_diff. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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