ateam_github_log

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the tool reads commit history and supports a branch parameter, implying a read-only operation. It does not clarify permissions, rate limits, or side effects, but the verb 'View' strongly suggests non-destructive behavior. Good but not fully explicit.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence conveys essential information without redundancy. Efficient and clear.

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 no output schema, the description lists the return fields (messages, SHAs, timestamps, links) which is helpful. It covers purpose and parameter usage well. It could mention pagination or that it returns a list of commits, but overall is fairly complete for a simple log tool.

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 parameter descriptions. The description adds value by explaining the default branch ('main' for prod) and how to use 'ref' to see dev work, which is not obvious from the schema alone. It also mentions limit implicitly but could elaborate.

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?

Clearly states 'View commit history' for a solution's GitHub repo, specifying the verb and resource. Lists what the tool shows (messages, SHAs, timestamps, links) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ateam_github_diff or ateam_github_patch by focusing on history/log.

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?

Describes when to use (view commit history) and provides a specific usage tip (pass ref:'dev' for in-progress work). However, does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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