git_log

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'View recent git commits,' omitting traits like read-only nature, default count of 10 (only in schema), or whether it shows full history or filtered. The lack of side-effect or permission information reduces transparency.

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 extremely concise at three words, which is efficient for a simple tool. However, it sacrifices some necessary detail (e.g., what information is shown). It remains well-structured and front-loaded, but could be expanded slightly.

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 no output schema and simple parameters, the description is minimally adequate. It does not explain return format (e.g., commit hash, author, message) or limitations (e.g., only most recent commits). With siblings like git_diff and git_status, more context would help an agent decide, so completeness is only moderate.

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 100% with both parameters documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's property descriptions (e.g., count default). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as description does not compensate for any schema 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 'View recent git commits' clearly states the verb (view) and resource (git commits). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like git_commit (creating commits) and git_status (current state), leaving no ambiguity about its purpose.

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 such as git_diff or git_status. It does not mention context, prerequisites (e.g., a repository), or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage without explicit direction.

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