Get commit references

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the return is a wrapper with a list of reference dictionaries, but doesn't clarify what 'references' are, pagination behavior, or filtering semantics – leaving the interesting behavior undisclosed.

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 text is short but is boilerplate docstring boilerplate ('Args: **kwargs', 'Raises: ParameterError') rather than front-loaded useful information. The **kwargs line adds noise without conveying substance.

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 tool with 40 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations beyond basic hints, the description is wholly inadequate. It neither explains what references are, how to scope them, nor what the caller actually receives beyond a vague wrapper statement.

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 schema has 40 parameters at 0% description coverage, yet the description only mentions an opaque '**kwargs' catch-all. Critical params (ref, path, name, page, per_page, commit hash specifics) are left undifferentiated, so the description fails entirely to compensate for the coverage 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?

The description restates the tool name ('Get references of a commit') without explaining what a 'reference' is – branches/tags containing the commit – or what distinguishes it from siblings like gitlab_get_commit_merge_requests or gitlab_get_commit. It is essentially a tautology of the title with no differentiating detail.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the many commit-related siblings (gitlab_get_commit, gitlab_get_commit_comments, gitlab_get_commit_discussions), no prerequisites, and no exclusions. An agent gets no help choosing.

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