Commit Patterns

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes safe read behavior, but the description adds valuable context by explaining what the analysis reveals (weekend deployments, late-night hotfixes, declining commit velocity). It also discloses the repo_path requirement, which is a meaningful behavioral caveat. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 plus a prerequisite note, all front-loaded. Every sentence contributes either a concrete analytical output, an interpretive hint, or a critical usage condition. No filler or redundancy.

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 tool is moderately complex with no output schema, but the description conveys the nature of the results (distributions, heatmap, breakdown, trends) and the required context (repo_path). Combined with the complete parameter schema and sibling tool context, this is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it 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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage for all three parameters, so the description does not need to explain them. The mention of repo_path in the description reinforces its requirement but does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Analyze') and clearly identifies the resource ('the team commits') along with the exact analytical outputs (day-of-week distribution, hour-of-day heatmap, commit size breakdown, weekly velocity trends). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like hotspots or churn, which focus on code areas or turnover, not temporal commit patterns.

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 description implies when to use this tool (to analyze commit timing and velocity patterns) and provides a critical prerequisite: repo_path must be supplied if the server was not started in a git repo. However, it does not explicitly compare against alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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