github_get_commits

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the basic function. It does not mention read-only nature, default branch behavior, limit enforcement, pagination, or response format. The schema shows some defaults (branch=main, limit=10), but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the obvious.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It directly states the tool's purpose and is easy to parse quickly. This is a model of conciseness, though it may be too brief in other dimensions.

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?

The tool has three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description should provide more context about return values, edge cases, or when to use it relative to siblings. It only covers the basic action, leaving users without information on pagination, sorting, or potential errors. The description is insufficient for a production tool with multiple siblings.

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 67%: repo and branch have descriptions, but limit is undocumented. The tool description does not clarify the limit parameter or add any syntax/format details. It only restates that it works on a branch, which the schema already conveys. Thus, the description fails to compensate for the missing limit semantics.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get commit history for a branch.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like github_get_pull_requests and github_get_file_contents by focusing on commit history scoped to a branch. The purpose is 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 implies usage when commit history is needed, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over related tools (e.g., github_get_pull_requests) or any exclusion criteria. There are no alternatives mentioned, so the usage context is only implied by the tool name and description.

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