recent_commits

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the behavioral burden; 'Fetch' clearly implies a read-only operation, and 'with commit stats' gives some insight into response content. However, it does not disclose auth requirements, sorting/ordering, how branches/days interact, or pagination behavior.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant information. It conveys the primary operation, the scope, the lookback period, and the output feature efficiently.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-format documentation is less necessary. But with no annotations and 0% schema parameter coverage, the description should cover key operational details like 'limit', repo naming format, and branch behavior. It covers the core idea but leaves meaningful 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?

Since there are no parameter descriptions in the schema, the description is responsible for clarifying parameter semantics. It clarifies lookback days and branches, but does not explain 'limit', repo name format, or defaults. The description only partially compensates for 0% schema 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 concrete verb ('Fetch') and identifies a clear resource ('recent commits') with useful scoping details: repository branch, lookback days, and commit stats. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like inspect_pr, check_ci_status, and search_repos without needing to open the schema.

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 context is only implied: use this tool to retrieve recent commit history for a branch. There is no explicit 'when to use' vs alternative, no exclusions, and no mention of when a repo/branch combination is required. This is minimally viable but lacks explicit guidance.

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