get_path_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a fair job: it discloses the return shape (SHA, author, date, headline), the hard cap of 100 commits, the default of 20, and how to narrow results. It does not state pagination/ordering behavior or permissions, but for a read-only listing the disclosure is solid.

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?

Four short sentences, each doing distinct work: purpose, use case, return values, limits/filters. Scope and output are front-loaded, and nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description correctly supplies the return fields and the result cap. Combined with the fully covered input schema, an agent has what it needs to call and interpret the tool; only ordering/pagination nuances are unstated.

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 100%, so the schema already documents ref, path, limit, since, and until with types and defaults. The description restates the cap/default and groups since/until/limit as narrowing controls, which is mildly useful but largely duplicative of the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Lists commits modifying a specific file or directory up to a ref.' That clearly separates it from siblings like get_diff or get_blame, which operate at other granularities. It stops short of explicitly naming such siblings, so 4 rather than 5.

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?

'Use to trace when a path was touched or refactored' gives a concrete scenario, and 'Narrow with since, until, or limit' tells the agent how to scope a call. No explicit when-not or named alternative (e.g. get_blame for per-line authorship) is offered, so it is clear context without exclusions.

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