list_repo_commits

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as pagination behavior, default branch handling, output ordering, or rate-limit implications. 'Branch optional' merely mirrors what the schema already expresses via default null.

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 one tight, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It loses a point because it is slightly under-specified for a five-parameter tool, but it is not verbose and is easy to parse.

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 output schema and readOnlyHint annotation cover the return shape and safety profile, so the description is not wholly inadequate. However, it omits alternatives like get_commit and any detail about pagination or branch filtering behavior, which matters given the large sibling tool set.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description needed to compensate for the five parameters. It only mentions that branch is optional; owner, repo, page, and limit receive no semantic guidance, and pagination behavior is not explained.

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 states a specific action ('List') and resource ('commits in a repository'), so the core purpose is clear. It also notes that branch is optional. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_commit or other list_* tools.

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 gives no guidance on when to prefer this tool over get_commit, when to supply a branch, or how this relates to other commit-related tools. It essentially restates the tool's function without usage context or alternatives.

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