search_commits

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It states that the search covers commit messages, author, and subsystem, and returns a dictionary with evidence sources. However, it does not mention rate limits, authorization, or whether results are limited or sorted. The description is adequate for a read-only search but lacks deeper behavioral detail.

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 front-loaded with a clear one-line purpose, followed by a structured Args list and Returns summary. Every sentence adds value with no unnecessary fluff, and the formatting makes it easy to scan.

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 simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers parameters and return type, and the scope is clearly defined. It could benefit from mentioning pagination or alternative sibling tools, but that is not essential for a basic search operation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides an Args section explaining each parameter (e.g., 'query: Keywords to search in commit messages'). This adds meaning beyond the schema, though it is brief and does not detail format constraints (e.g., regex, case sensitivity).

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 'Search kernel git commits by message, author, or subsystem.' This provides a specific verb (search), resource (kernel git commits), and scope that differentiates it from sibling tools like search_patches or search_lkml.

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 lists optional filters, implying when to use this tool (e.g., filtering by author or subsystem). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives when searching is not appropriate, such as using get_commit_details for a known commit or search_patches for patch content. Usage context is implied but not detailed.

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