git_last_commit_files

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It implies a read-only listing and clarifies output is 'names only,' but it does not disclose behavior around the directory parameter, error cases, or whether paths are absolute or relative.

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, tightly worded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning, stating exactly what the tool does and the output scope.

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 is too sparse for a tool with an undocumented parameter and no output schema. It omits clarification on the directory argument, default behavior, and return format specifics, leaving gaps for successful invocation.

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 sole parameter 'directory' has no schema description and is entirely unmentioned in the tool description. The agent gets no guidance on what this string should be or how it affects the result, making the parameter effectively opaque.

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 lists file paths changed in the latest commit, with 'names only' indicating scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like git_last_commit_for_file (which filters by file) and git_recent_commits (which lists 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. It does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and description.

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