repo_get_file_history

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only implies a read-only operation through the verb 'Get'. It says nothing about commit ordering (newest first?), whether renames or deletions are followed, behavior on untracked/nonexistent paths, or the shape of a returned commit entry.

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?

A single tight sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on underspecification rather than optimal economy.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action and the schema covers the inputs. Missing are the return-value shape and ordering, plus any note about git-repository preconditions, which an agent would need to interpret results correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, with both 'path' (relative to workspace) and 'maxCommits' (default 20) documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or edge-case meaning beyond the phrase 'for a file', so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: retrieving git commit history for a file in the repository. An agent can distinguish it from repo_search_code or repo_find_references, which search content/references rather than history, though the description never names those siblings explicitly.

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 on when to use this versus alternatives such as repo_inspect or repo_find_references, and no stated prerequisites (e.g., that the workspace must be a git repository, or whether the path must be tracked). Usage is only implied by the noun 'history'.

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