git_log

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not say the operation is read-only, how results are ordered, how the commit count is bounded, or that history is truncated to the current repository/branch context. 'Most recent' is the only ordering hint.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the action, resource, and the optional narrowing in that order, with zero filler.

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?

Yes, an output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and this is a low-complexity two-parameter read tool. However, with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the definition leaves the agent guessing about the meaning of 'n' and the read-only nature of the call.

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 must explain both parameters. It covers 'path' via 'optionally limited to one file', but the 'n' parameter (default 20) is never mentioned or explained, so it only partially compensates for the schema gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Show the most recent git commits') with a scoping qualifier ('optionally limited to one file'), which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like git_diff and git_blame. It never names those alternatives, so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to reach for git_blame or git_diff instead, and no prerequisites or constraints. The reader must infer from the description alone that this is the history-viewing tool.

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