list_repo_commits

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

Description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic action. It omits important details such as sorting order, default pagination, or that the 'sha' parameter can filter by branch. With no annotations, this leaves significant gaps for the agent.

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 very concise (3 words), which is efficient but lacks necessary detail. It could include more context without being verbose, so it earns a middling score.

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 tool has 5 parameters including pagination and optional branch filtering, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain behavior like default page/limit, ordering, or return format, leaving the agent underinformed.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for all parameters, so the schema already explains them. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.

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?

Description clearly states the tool lists commits in a repository, providing a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from similar tools like list_pr_commits, which also lists commits but for pull requests.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_pr_commits or get_branch. The description lacks context for appropriate use scenarios or prerequisites.

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