list_commits

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It explicitly says 'Read-only,' which is a useful behavioral disclosure, but it does not mention default result limits, result ordering, pagination, time format expectations, or authentication requirements.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and adds the key 'Read-only' trait. Every word earns its place with no filler.

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?

The tool has 8 parameters and an output schema, but no annotations. The description covers the basic list-and-filter behavior and read-only safety, yet it omits important operational details such as default max_results, date/time handling, and whether results are sorted. It is minimally viable but not fully complete for a complex tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It lists the general filter categories (branch, path, author, time), which maps to some parameters, but it does not explain the concrete semantics of parameters like max_results, since/until format, branch_or_sha, or the required owner/repo.

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 and specifies the filtering dimensions (branch, path, author, time). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_repositories, get_repository, and get_commit_status.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: to list commits with optional filters. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, so it falls short of a full 5.

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