find_commits

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits; however, it only states the search purpose. It does not mention pagination, output format, error behavior, or permissions. For a search tool, knowing that it scans all sessions is useful but insufficient.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. The first sentence clearly defines the function and scope; the second provides a practical example. Every word 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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should compensate. While it explains what the tool does, it does not describe the return format, what happens when no commits match, or how pagination limits work. It is adequate for a straightforward search but not comprehensive.

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 the baseline is 3. The description repeats the query parameter's capability (matching by message, hash, or branch) but adds no new meaning for other parameters like session_id, operation_type, limit, or max_chars beyond what the schema already provides.

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: search for git commits across all sessions using a query by message, hash prefix, or branch name. It includes a concrete use case ('find that commit where we fixed the parser') which adds clarity.

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 'Great for...' example implies a usage scenario, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use alternatives like get_session_commits (which scopes to a session) or when not to use this tool. The optional session_id parameter hints at scoping but is not explained.

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