bridgeListCommits

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral aspects such as read-only semantics (GET is implied but not stated), authentication requirements, rate limits, or return format. The description carries the full burden and fails to address any behavioral traits.

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 URL string, which is extremely short. However, this is under-specification rather than conciseness: it omits necessary explanatory content. A helpful description would be a few sentences explaining the tool's purpose and parameters.

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?

The tool has two required parameters, three optional, no output schema, and no annotations. The description provides no contextual information about behavior, response, or use cases. This is completely inadequate for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the five parameters (repo, limit, branch, bridgeUrl, ownerPubkey). The schema itself provides no parameter descriptions, so the tool is effectively unusable without external knowledge.

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 is only 'GET /api/nostr/repo/commits', which is an HTTP endpoint path rather than a clear statement of functionality. While the HTTP method and resource hint at listing commits, it lacks explicit action wording or a resource description that distinguishes it from siblings like getCommitHistory or bridgeListRefs.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as getCommitHistory or bridgeListRefs. The description provides no context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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