list_commits

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description is not required to restate safety. However, it adds behavioral details: the author filter is client-side and only applies to the current page, and the fields param supports '*all' for full raw response. This exceeds the baseline.

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 consists of two concise sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose and filtering options; the second details the fields param. No redundant information; every sentence 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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main use case, filtering, field selection, and client-side behavior of the author filter. It does not explain branch filter behavior or response format, but these are secondary. Overall, it is largely complete.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context beyond schema: it explains the fields param with examples and clarifies that the author filter is client-side and pagination-dependent. This adds meaningful value.

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 lists commits in a repository with optional filtering by branch and author. The verb 'list' and resource 'commits' are specific, and the tool is distinct from siblings like 'get_commit' (single commit) and 'list_commit_comments'.

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 listing commits in a repository with filters, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_commit' or 'get_commit_pull_requests'. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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