git_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention that git history analysis is read-only, performance implications for large repositories, the need for git context, or any side effects. The description only lists modes, leaving significant behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 short and front-loaded, stating the tool's purpose in a single sentence. It is concise with no wasted words. However, it could benefit from slightly more structure, such as listing modes in a clearer way, but it earns its place.

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 5 parameters and an output schema, the description is insufficient for complete context. It does not explain that blame requires file_path, the meaning of churn/coupling results, or how to interpret output. While the output schema exists, the description misses key operational context.

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 coverage is 100%, and each parameter has a description in the schema. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the mode names. With full schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate; the description does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 analyzes git history and lists three specific modes (blame, churn, change coupling), distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on other analysis aspects. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from tools like get_change_impact, which also analyze change patterns, but the mode enumeration provides enough specificity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where other tools would be more appropriate. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and sibling list.

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