git_log

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It merely states 'Show commit history,' which repeats the tool's name and purpose without revealing any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, performance implications, or required permissions. This is insufficient for an agent to understand side effects or constraints.

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 of seven words, containing no filler or redundant information. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without any wasted verbiage, earning a top score for conciseness.

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 simplicity (three optional parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate by stating the purpose. However, it lacks context about return format, default behavior, or interaction with the repository, making it incomplete for a fully self-contained tool definition.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters, meaning the schema already documents their meaning. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not improve upon the schema's parameter documentation.

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 'Show commit history' clearly identifies the tool's function with a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('commit history'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like git_diff (shows changes) and git_status (shows working tree state), leaving no ambiguity about its purpose.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as git_diff, git_status, or compare_commits. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or scenarios where this tool is preferred, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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