Longhand

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool's function and output scope ('chronologically', 'all git operations'), but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or output format, leaving gaps for a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with two concise sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and value without any wasted words, making it easy for an AI agent to quickly understand the tool's role.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the purpose and context well, but lacks details on behavioral aspects like output structure or error conditions, which are important for a tool with multiple filtering parameters.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters well. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining parameter interactions or usage examples, but it implies chronological ordering and broad scope of 'git operations' which aligns with the schema.

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 purpose with specific verbs ('Get all git operations') and resources ('from a session'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'find_commits' or 'get_session_timeline' by emphasizing chronological capture of git operations that 'git log doesn't capture'.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('Links session work to git history — the in-between that git log doesn't capture'), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among the sibling tools, such as 'find_commits' or 'get_session_timeline'.

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