git_file_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action, not ordering, pagination, default limits, or whether specific parameters like directory are required to disambiguate paths. There is no mention of output format or potential side effects, leaving the agent with minimal behavioral expectations.

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 sentence that directly states the purpose without filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the primary action and resource, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. Every word earns its place, though it sacrifices completeness (addressed in other dimensions).

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 three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description only covers the main purpose and one parameter. It does not elaborate on usage context, parameter roles, or expected return, leaving the agent with insufficient information to correctly invoke the tool in varied scenarios. For a simple tool this is incomplete given the lack of structured context.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the parameters. It only implicitly explains 'filePath' as the 'specific file path,' but does not explain 'limit' (e.g., maximum entries) or 'directory' (how it is used to resolve the path). The description adds little beyond the parameter names, failing to define the semantics for two of the three parameters.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' plus resource 'commit history entries' and scopes it to 'a specific file path,' clearly differentiating it from sibling tools like git_recent_commits (recent commits generally), git_last_commit_for_file (only the last commit), and git_last_commit_files (files in the last commit). This provides immediate clarity on the tool's core function.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this should be used when you need the full commit history for a file as opposed to git_recent_commits for a broad overview or git_last_commit_for_file for just the most recent commit. Without exclusion or alternative suggestions, the agent has no direction for selection.

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