get_commit_activity

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states the output is weekly counts over a year but does not clarify aspects like whether weeks with zero commits are included, response format, pagination, or authentication requirements. This is a significant gap for a tool with no other behavioral metadata.

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, concise sentence that conveys the core functionality without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the key information (weekly counts and time range) and achieves high efficiency.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description gives a basic understanding of what is returned, but it lacks details about the exact structure of the response and edge cases. The absence of annotations and output schema means the agent must infer behavior from the minimal text, leaving some ambiguity.

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 has one parameter, owner_repo, with 0% description coverage. The description does not mention or explain this parameter, relying entirely on the self-explanatory name. It fails to add any additional meaning about the parameter's format or relationship to the returned data.

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 returns weekly commit counts over the last year, providing a specific resource and time range. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_commits by indicating aggregated counts rather than individual commits. However, it lacks an explicit verb, relying on the tool name for action.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_commits or get_repo_stats. The description does not mention any exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from the name and context.

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