list_version_history

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 usefully reveals that the tool 'Uses the workspace if present, else a temp clone', which is a significant side-effect (potential clone creation). It also conveys a read-only intent via 'Return git commit history'. However, it does not cover auth requirements, failure behavior, or whether a temp clone is cleaned up, leaving some gaps.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core action and output shape, then adds a key behavioral note about workspace/clone. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy. It is concise and well-structured.

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 tool's moderate complexity and absence of an output schema, the description covers the essential return fields and the workspace/clone behavior, which is good. It lacks some context like pagination, sorting, or whether changedFiles contains diffs, but the schema covers parameters. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's basic invocation and expected result.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% parameter documentation, including descriptions for projectName, limit, and filePath, so the description does not need to repeat them. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as parameter interactions or default behavior, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool 'Return[s] git commit history for a project' with a specific verb and resource, and lists the output fields ({sha, author, date, message, changedFiles}). This distinctly separates it from sibling tools like list_files (files) and rollback_to_version (actions), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as using rollback_to_version for reverting or list_files for viewing current contents. It implies usage by describing the function, but lacks clear context on when it is appropriate or when to prefer another tool. The workspace/clone detail hints at setup requirements, but not comparative guidance.

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