repository_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation is local, bounded, and will not contact a remote — meaningful non-obvious traits. It does not explicitly declare read-only/no side effects or error behavior, but 'Return ... history' strongly implies a non-mutating query.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every phrase — bounded, local, without contacting a remote — adds decision-relevant information for the agent.

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?

For a simple read-only history tool with an output schema and sensible defaults (revision=HEAD, max_count=20), the description plus schema gives an agent enough to invoke it correctly. Minor gaps like revision format or behavior on an invalid path are not critical for this 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%, but the description adds contextual meaning: 'bounded' maps to max_count and 'local' clarifies repository_path refers to a local checkout. It does not explain revision beyond the default HEAD or define exactly what max_count limits, leaving parameter guidance adequate but not thorough.

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 starts with a specific verb 'Return' and a concrete resource 'bounded local commit history', while also stating the key scope constraint: no remote contact. This cleanly distinguishes it from sibling tools like repository_fetch, repository_pull, repository_status, and repository_diff.

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?

It explicitly states the critical environment constraint — local operation with no remote contact — which tells an agent when to use this tool (local history analysis) and when not to (when fresh remote data is needed). It does not name sibling alternatives explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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