Git History

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds valuable context: 'Never contacts remotes', which clarifies network behavior and local-only scope, beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Two sentences: one for purpose, one for a key constraint. No fluff, every word earns its place. Front-loaded with the core function.

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 values are documented. The description covers the main behavior (local commits, authors, churn) and the critical constraint (no remote contact). It could mention the maxCommits limit, but that is in the schema. Completeness is good but not perfect.

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 only 33% (only path has a description). The description does not explain the parameters (maxCommits, includeChurn) or their effect, leaving the agent to infer from the schema. This does not compensate for the low coverage.

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 provides 'recent local commits, distinct authors, and churn hotspots', which is specific about the resource and scope. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get', making it slightly less direct.

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 for local git history by stating 'Never contacts remotes', but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over siblings like sdlc_audit_log or sdlc_list_changes. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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