list_commits

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions pagination but does not disclose read-only nature, permissions, rate limits, or response format. The output schema exists but description does not add behavioral context beyond basic listing.

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: a single sentence summarizing the tool's purpose, followed by a clean parameter list. No extraneous 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?

Given the presence of an output schema (which documents return values), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, parameters, pagination, and filtering. It is complete for a list-like 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%, so description compensates by providing one-line explanations for each parameter (e.g., 'Optional branch, tag, or commit'). This adds meaning beyond schema types and defaults, though could be more detailed.

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), specifies pagination, and optional filters. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_commit which retrieves a single commit.

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 indicates when to use the tool (to list commits with optional filters) but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance. However, the name and context make it clear it's for listing, while siblings are for single commits or diffs.

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