tfs_list_commits

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It only states 'list recent commits' implying a read operation, but fails to disclose authentication needs, destructive potential, pagination, rate limits, or ordering. This leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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 with no redundancy. However, it is too brief for the tool's complexity, missing crucial details. Conciseness is valued, but here it sacrifices completeness for brevity, earning a 4.

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 has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what 'recent' means, default behavior, required parameters, or return format. The tool is more complex than the description acknowledges.

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 only 25% (one parameter, 'branch', documented). The description adds no parameter details beyond what is in the schema, failing to explain 'top', 'project', or 'repositoryId'. With low coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 verb 'list', the resource 'commits', and the scope 'for a Git repository' with an optional branch filter. It distinguishes from sibling tools like tfs_list_repos and tfs_list_branches by explicitly mentioning commits.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as tfs_list_branches or tfs_list_repos. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or use cases, leaving the agent without context for appropriate invocation.

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