github_gists_list_commits

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

Description provides no behavioral details beyond the action of listing. No mention of pagination (though schema includes per_page and page), ordering, or what constitutes a commit in this context. With no annotations, this is insufficient.

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?

Extremely short, but not front-loaded with key information. No wasted words, but also no valuable content beyond the name. Could be longer to include essential context.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context about return value structure, usage patterns, or limitations. It fails to do so, leaving the agent without enough information to invoke the tool correctly.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 3 parameters, so description does not need to add meaning. The description adds no extra context beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for full 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?

Description clearly states verb 'List' and resource 'gist commits'. The resource is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like 'github_gists_list' (list gists) or 'github_gists_list_comments', though it could be more explicit about listing version history.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'github_gists_get_revision' (get a single revision) or 'github_gists_list' (list all gists). The description lacks context about prerequisite actions or use cases.

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