List commits

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat that. However, it adds no behavioral context beyond the schema, such as pagination behavior, default limits, or handling of all_pages. The mention of filters is already present in the schema.

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, waste-free sentence that is front-loaded and states the core purpose. While it could be more detailed for such a parameter-rich tool, it avoids redundancy and earns its place.

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, no output schema, and no notes on pagination, defaults, or return value structure, this one-sentence description is severely incomplete. The agent is left without critical information needed to correctly invoke the tool (e.g., all_pages semantics, pagination limits).

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 73%, leaving parameters like until, author, and with_stats underexplained. The description highlights path and date filters, adding minor prioritization, but it does not compensate for the undocumented parameters or clarify their semantics.

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 identifies the tool's function as retrieving commit history, with optional path and date filters. It sufficiently distinguishes from the sibling gitlab_get_commit via the plural 'commits' and list semantics, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like gitlab_get_commit or gitlab_compare. It also does not mention when to use pagination features such as all_pages or per_page.

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