get_session_commits

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

Description adds context beyond the name by listing operation types (commits, pushes, merges, etc.) and indicating chronological ordering. However, with no annotations, it fails to disclose potential side effects, auth requirements, or error scenarios.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and a clarifying follow-up. No redundant words, efficient.

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 description explains the kind of data returned (git operations) and ordering (chronological), but lacks details on output format, pagination, or error handling. Adequate for a list operation but not exhaustive.

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?

Input schema provides 100% coverage of parameter descriptions (e.g., prefix match, filter values). The description does not add any new information about parameters, thus meeting baseline but not exceeding.

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?

Description clearly states 'Get all git operations... from a session, chronologically', highlighting a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing session-specific history and the value of capturing operations that git log misses.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like find_commits or get_session_timeline. The phrase 'the in-between that git log doesn't capture' implies a use case but does not define exclusions or alternatives.

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