get_commits

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. The only behavioral trait added is 'recent', implying sorting by date, but it does not disclose read-only status, auth requirements, return format, or limitations (e.g., merge commits, pagination). This is a significant gap for an unannotated tool.

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 that directly conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words or repetition of schema details. It is concise and well-structured.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description must compensate by explaining behavior and return context. It only provides the basic purpose and the 'recent' qualifier. It does not explain how branch and path interact, what a commit object looks like, or edge cases, making it incomplete for a tool with moderate complexity.

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 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the 'recent' qualifier, which hints at sorting but does not provide substantial semantic value beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions.

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 action ('Get'), resource ('recent commits'), and scope ('for a branch or file path'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_branches and get_pull_requests, which target different resources.

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 phrase 'for a branch or file path' implies usage for retrieving commits filtered by these criteria. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, relying on the name to differentiate from sibling tools. This is an implied usage guideline, not a clear directive.

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