git_log

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the workspace-root scoping constraint, but does not disclose ordering, pagination, or output format, which would add further behavioral context.

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 sentence with no filler; the primary action and object are front-loaded, and the workspace-root constraint is stated concisely. Every word earns its place.

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 simple read-only list tool with two optional parameters, the description, schema, and annotations together are largely sufficient. No output schema exists, so the description could have specified return fields, but 'show recent commits' implies the output type and the missing detail is not critical for correct invocation.

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 50%: repo_path has a description, while max_count does not. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, though max_count's name plus default/min/max constraints make it reasonably self-explanatory.

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 uses a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('recent Git commits'), clearly indicating the tool's function. It is distinguishable from sibling git tools by its focus on commit history, though it does not explicitly name or contrast any alternative.

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 implies usage when recent commit history is needed, but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives like git_show for individual commits or git_status for working-tree state, leaving selection to inference.

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