list_commits

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's behavior: it retrieves a list of commits with specific details (SHA, message, author, timestamp), specifies defaults for parameters (branch defaults to 'HEAD', limit defaults to 50), and indicates the return format (JSON-formatted string). However, it does not mention potential limitations like rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose, followed by details on what is retrieved, and then structured sections for arguments and returns. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is complete enough. It covers the purpose, usage, parameter semantics, and return format. Since an output schema exists, it does not need to explain return values in detail, and the description adequately supplements the structured data.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate fully. It successfully adds meaning beyond the input schema by explaining each parameter: 'repo_path' as the absolute path to the repository, 'branch' as the branch name, tag, or commit SHA with a default, and 'limit' as the maximum number of commits with a default. This provides essential context not present 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 clearly states the specific action ('List the commit history') and resource ('for a specific branch or reference'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'list_branches' (which lists branches) and 'compare_commits' (which compares commits). It precisely defines what the tool does without ambiguity.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (to retrieve commit history from a branch or reference) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives. It implies usage for historical data retrieval but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to siblings like 'get_repo_status' or 'rollback_to_commit'.

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