list_commits

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists commits with optional filtering, but doesn't describe what the output looks like (e.g., commit metadata format), whether it's paginated (though 'page' and 'pagelen' parameters hint at this), rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose upfront with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a list operation and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration.

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 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the return format, pagination behavior (implied by parameters but not stated), error handling, or how filtering works beyond branch. Given the complexity and lack of structured data, more contextual information would be needed for an agent to use this tool effectively.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by mentioning optional filtering by branch, which aligns with the 'branch' parameter but doesn't provide additional context beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 the verb ('List') and resource ('commits in a repository'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from some siblings like 'get_commit' (singular) but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list operations like 'list_branches' or 'list_pull_requests' beyond the resource type.

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 mentions optional filtering by branch, which provides some usage context, but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_commit' (for a single commit) or 'list_pull_requests' (which might contain commits). There's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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