list_commits

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only restates the tool's action without revealing any side effects, rate limits, default behaviors, or response characteristics. It adds minimal value beyond the tool name, though it doesn't mislead, so it scores slightly above the lowest.

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, front-loaded sentence with a category tag, providing maximum information in minimal words. It contains no fluff and directly communicates the tool's purpose. Every character earns its place, exemplifying 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?

With 11 parameters and no output schema, the description should clarify the tool's output, filtering behavior, or pagination. It does none of that, leaving the agent to infer essential details. The description is too sparse for a tool of this complexity, making it incomplete.

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?

All 11 parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description itself does not add parameter-level context, but the schema already explains each parameter's meaning, including defaults (e.g., refName defaults to repository default branch). Therefore, the description does not need to compensate further.

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 'List commits in a Codeup repository' clearly states the verb 'list' and the resource 'commits', and adds the repository context. It differentiates from sibling tools like get_commit by implying a collection operation, but it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives, resulting in a minor deduction. Overall, it is specific and understandable.

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 get_commit or list_change_requests. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. As the rubric notes, this is 'no guidance' which merits a score of 2.

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