git_log

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states the tool is read-only and that max_count is capped at 50, which are useful behavioral constraints. It does not mention ordering or required repository state, but those are minor for a simple log tool.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the tool's core purpose and safety trait, followed by a parameter constraint. No wasted words.

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 covers purpose, safety, and the key limit, and an output schema exists to explain return values. It lacks explicit selection guidance versus siblings, but for a simple read-only log tool this is sufficient.

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 has only a type and title for max_count, and coverage is 0% in the description. The description adds a concrete constraint (capped at 50) and the parameter name is self-explanatory about limiting the number of commits. It could state that it controls how many commits are returned, but the cap is a useful addition.

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 explicitly says 'Show recent commit history,' which clearly identifies the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like git_status and git_diff by naming the resource (commit history). The read-only qualifier adds further precision.

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 (showing recent commits) but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over git_status, git_diff, or git_show. No exclusions or alternative references are given.

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