list_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 behavioral disclosure. It mentions filtering and pagination via 'limit', but lacks critical details: whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or pagination beyond the default limit. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It front-loads the purpose in one sentence, then lists args and returns in clear sections. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or fluff. Minor improvements could include briefer formatting, but it's highly efficient.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers parameters and return values adequately, but lacks behavioral context (e.g., safety, errors, pagination). Without annotations or output schema, it should do more to guide usage, especially for a list operation in a sibling-rich environment.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains each parameter's purpose: 'repo_slug' (repository slug), 'branch' (filter by branch), 'path' (filter by file path), and 'limit' (maximum results with default). This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., slug structure).

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 tool's purpose: 'List commits in a repository.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('commits'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_commit' (singular) or 'compare_commits'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools (e.g., 'list_branches'), which keeps it from a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention siblings like 'get_commit' (for single commits) or 'compare_commits' (for commit comparisons), nor does it specify prerequisites or contextual usage scenarios. The absence of such guidance limits its utility for an AI agent.

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