git_log

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses read-only behavior ('Does not modify system state') and constraints (max entries limit, allowed roots). This adds important context beyond the schema and compensates for the lack of annotations.

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 concise, with the core purpose and constraints in the first paragraph and usage guidance in the second. It is appropriately front-loaded and contains no unnecessary fluff.

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 an output schema exists, the description covers essential aspects: purpose, constraints, and when to use. It does not mention errors or edge cases, 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the max_entries limit (max 100) and the repo path constraint (must be within allowed roots), but does not fully elaborate on the repo parameter's expected format or purpose. It adds some value but leaves gaps.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Returns the most recent Git log entries'), details the content (commit hash, author, date, message), and distinguishes it from sibling git tools by focusing on history investigation. It is clear and unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('investigating recent commits, looking for when a change was made, or identifying who made modifications'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, but the guidance is sufficient for an agent to select it correctly.

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