Show edit history

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry behavior. It usefully discloses that edits auto-commit and that the history is local, but it does not describe the return shape, ordering, or whether the command is strictly read-only. The verb 'Show' implies no mutation, but the absence of a full behavioral contract is a gap.

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?

One focused sentence with a useful parenthetical; no filler. The core action and context are front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 low-complexity tool with no required parameters and no output schema, this is minimally adequate: an agent can call it without arguments and understand it returns recent commits. It is incomplete in explaining the optional limit parameter and the exact nature of the returned commit data.

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 has a single 'limit' parameter with min/max constraints but no description, and the tool description never mentions it. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description adds no semantic value for it and does not state a default.

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 specific verb ('Show') and resource ('recent git commits for the local theme'), and the parenthetical clarifies the commit model. This is enough to distinguish it from file content tools and from git_revert_file, which is about reverting rather than viewing.

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 intended use is implied by the purpose: call this when you need the recent commit history of the local theme. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare against alternatives such as read_file or git_revert_file.

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