mnemosyne_git_log

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

Read-only is already in annotations, but the description adds critical behavior: commit fields, newest-first ordering, config/scope failure reporting instead of empty list. This tells the agent what to expect and how to interpret 'no commits' scenarios.

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?

Four dense sentences with the main action first, then behavior, constraints, and routing. No filler or repeated schema 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by specifying the return shape (hash, subject, author, date, newest first) and failure behaviors. Scope, configuration, and alternative usage are covered, making it complete for a simple read 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 100%, so the baseline is 3; limit and since are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no extra parameter-level detail beyond that, but it also doesn't need to.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Read recent commits from the git repository') and states the exact output fields and ordering. It distinguishes itself from mnemosyne_memory_query by noting that tool covers reasoning behind a change, so an agent can pick correctly.

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?

It explicitly routes to mnemosyne_memory_query for the reasoning behind a change, giving a when-not alternative. It also states the tool is fixed to the configured checkout and requires monorepo:read scope, so agents know when it is usable and what failure looks like.

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