list_commits

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the burden. 'Get list' clearly implies a read-only operation with no destructive side effects, but the description does not disclose default behavior when sha is omitted, ordering, or pagination characteristics. These gaps are minor for a simple read tool, so a mid score is appropriate.

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. Every word contributes to the purpose, and it is concise without being tautological.

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?

For a simple list call, the description plus schema is enough to make a basic request using owner/repo and optionally sha. However, it does not mention what happens when sha is absent (e.g., default branch) or describe the returned commit data, and there is no output schema to fill that gap. This is adequate but not complete.

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?

The input schema already documents all five parameters with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to restate them. It adds only that the list is tied to a branch, which aligns with the sha parameter. No additional semantic detail is provided beyond the schema.

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 names the operation ('Get list'), the resource ('commits'), and the scope ('of a branch in a GitLab repository'), which is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like get_file_contents or list_merge_requests. It does slightly narrow the sha parameter to 'branch' when it may also be a commit SHA, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is given about when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusion such as 'use list_merge_requests for merge request history'. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer its appropriate use from the tool name.

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