list_commits

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only says 'show,' which implies a read operation, but it does not clarify return format, pagination, rate limits, or whether the operation requires authentication. This is insufficient for a tool with no structured safety 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, succinct sentence with no redundant or filler words. It is appropriately sized for the minimal function it describes, though it sacrifices informative content for brevity.

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 has two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal to be complete. It omits return value details, parameter semantics, and any operational context that would help an agent determine if this tool is suitable.

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 0% description coverage, and the description only marginally hints at the 'n' parameter via 'last N commits.' It does not explain 'repo_path' or add any semantic detail beyond the parameter names. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 'Show the last N commits' clearly identifies the action (show) and the resource (commits) with a specific scope (last N). It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like list_pull_requests or get_commit_activity, which focus on different aspects of repository history.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites. It is a bare statement without context on typical use cases or conditions.

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