gitlab_list_commits

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the parameters but does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination behavior, rate limits, or ordering. The description lacks depth for a tool with no 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 very concise at 5 lines, with a clear structure: purpose line followed by parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value, and the format is easy to parse.

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?

The description adequately covers the three parameters, but given the absence of annotations and the existence of an output schema, it could benefit from mentioning ordering or filtering context. It is minimally viable but leaves gaps for a simple list tool.

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%, but the description adds significant meaning: it explains each parameter (e.g., project_path uses 'group/project' format, ref accepts branch/tag/SHA, limit has default and max). This compensates fully for the missing schema descriptions.

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 clearly states 'List commits on a branch or ref,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like gitlab_get_commit (single commit) and gitlab_list_branches (branches).

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 for listing commits on a branch but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when not to use it or any context about ordering or pagination.

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