Get commits

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description's only real addition is the Returns note about a wrapper plus Commit models, but it omits pagination behavior (page, per_page, max_pages params exist) and the Args **kwargs line is misleading since the schema sets additionalProperties=false.

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 largely boilerplate: the Args **kwargs line is filler and inaccurate, and the Raises line adds little. Only the Returns sentence carries information.

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 40-parameter tool with no output schema and only auto-generated docstring text, the description is far too thin; an agent cannot infer filtering semantics, pagination limits, or default behavior (per_page=100, page=1) from it.

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% across 40 parameters, and the description compensates for none of them; the only parameter statement is a generic **kwargs line that does not describe any of the actual fields (ref, since, until, path, with_stats, all, etc.).

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 says only "Get commits," which restates the tool name and title without adding scope, distinguishing it from siblings like gitlab_get_commit, gitlab_get_commit_comments, or gitlab_get_commit_diff. An agent learns nothing about what a commit list request actually covers.

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 call this versus the many sibling commit tools (gitlab_get_commit, gitlab_get_commit_diff, gitlab_get_commit_statuses). No prerequisites, filtering context, or exclusions are stated anywhere.

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