get_recent_commits

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It does so effectively by disclosing the optional branch scoping and what each returned entry contains. It could mention ordering or lack of diffs, but the behavior is clear and unlikely to surprise the agent.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action, scope, and purpose; the second describes the return value. Every word earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

The description is complete enough for a straightforward read-only listing tool. It explains the return shape despite the absence of an output schema, and parameter details are fully covered by the schema. A minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly mention sorting order, but 'most recent' implies chronological order, so this is not a significant omission.

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 provides complete descriptions for all three parameters, including format, defaults, bounds, and the meaning of omitting `branch`. The description adds no meaningful parameter-level detail beyond reinforcing that branch is optional, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific action ('Get the most recent commits') with a well-defined resource and scope ('to a repo (or one branch)'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on commit history rather than repos, branches, or file contents. The addition of the output fields ('short SHA, author, when it happened, and the commit message') further clarifies what the tool is for.

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 'to see what's actively being worked on' provides clear contextual guidance on when to use this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but for a simple read-only commit listing tool, this level of usage context is sufficient.

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