commit_list

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

The description explicitly says 'Leitura' (read-only), which is a useful behavioral disclosure since no annotations are provided. However, it does not describe auth requirements, default branch behavior, pagination, or output format, so the burden is only partially met.

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 very concise: a single informative sentence plus one clarifying read-only label. It is front-loaded and contains no filler.

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?

For a simple read-only list tool with only one required parameter, the description plus schema is minimally adequate. Still, the low parameter coverage, lack of output schema, and absence of behavioral details like defaults or limits leave meaningful gaps for correct 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?

Schema description coverage is only 25%, and the description adds minimal parameter meaning. It mentions repo/branch indirectly, but does not clarify the semantics of 'top', branch optionality, or project allowlist behavior beyond what is already in the schema.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Lista commits recentes de um repo/branch' (list recent commits of a repo/branch). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list tools like pr_list, branch_list, and repo_list.

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 implies the tool is for retrieving commit history, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention any exclusions. The context is clear enough for basic selection, but there is no direct guidance about sibling tools.

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