list_ai_code_commits

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

With no annotations, the description discloses default values, date formats, pagination behavior, and user filter format, which is good. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or mention rate limits.

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 well-structured with bullet points and a clear header. It is concise but includes necessary details; could be slightly more succinct by removing redundant default info already in schema.

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 output schema exists, return value documentation is not needed. The description covers all parameters and provides useful context like max page size and default dates. Missing sorting or ordering details, but overall complete.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's format, default, and constraints (e.g., ISO dates, user ID formats, page size max). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 lists AI commit metrics with the specific HTTP method and path, distinguishing it from siblings like get_ai_code_commit_details and list_ai_code_changes.

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?

While it provides parameter details, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_ai_code_commit_details for single commits or download_ai_code_commits_csv for CSV export. Usage context is implied but not stated.

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