get_commit_dag

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

No annotations were provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It adds some behavioral context by explaining that 'limit' caps the maximum number of commits, but it does not disclose side effects, return semantics, or potential limitations (e.g., scope of included branches).

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 concise and well-structured: a single sentence stating the core purpose followed by a compact Args list. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

With only 2 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and parameter semantics adequately. It lacks usage context and nuances about the graph's scope, but it is sufficient for correct invocation in most cases.

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?

The description includes an Args block that clearly explains both parameters: project_uuid is the project UUID and limit is the maximum commit count (default 200). Since schema description coverage is 0%, this fully compensates and adds meaning beyond the bare schema.

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's function: 'Получить направленный граф коммитов проекта (историю изменений)' (get the directed commit graph). This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling commit-related tools like checkout_commit or get_branch_migration.

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. The description only explains what it does, leaving the agent to infer context. It does not mention exclusions or compare to other commit-history tools.

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