git_log

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context with 'without shell interpolation,' signaling that no shell command execution or injection risk is involved. This goes beyond the structured annotations.

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 with no filler. Every word contributes: the action, the resource, the output nature, and the safety-relevant execution detail.

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?

For a low-complexity, read-only tool with fully documented optional parameters, the description is nearly complete. It does not detail the exact structured return fields, and no output schema exists, so a small gap remains; however, 'structured Git commit history' plus schema and annotations covers all essential call-time needs.

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 100%, with clear descriptions for ref, path, and max_count including defaults. The tool description does not add parameter-specific meaning, but the schema already carries the full burden, so a 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Read structured Git commit history.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that show diffs, branches, or add/commit changes, and 'structured' indicates the output form.

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 intended use is implied as 'read Git commit history,' but the description does not explicitly say when to prefer this over git_show, git_diff, or git_branch, nor does it provide exclusions or alternative routing. It is adequate but leaves usage decisions to inference.

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