list_commits

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden, yet it never confirms this is a read-only operation, does not disclose the default or maximum result count, ordering (newest first?), or what 'recent' bounds. An agent must guess at the result shape and whether pagination or truncation applies.

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 well-formed sentence with the resource front-loaded and filters trailing, no filler. It is efficient but so sparse that the brevity trades against needed detail rather than being pure conciseness.

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?

Three optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema mean the description is the only source of truth, yet it omits default limits, ordering, and the shape of a returned commit. For a tool an agent will call blind, this leaves significant unanswered questions.

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%, so nothing in the schema explains the three parameters. The description covers only 'branch' and 'path' by name, omitting 'limit' entirely and giving no format details (branch name vs. SHA, path relative to repo root, default and max limit values).

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 ('List') and resource ('recent commits') scoped to the active GitHub repository, with the two optional filters named. It is reasonably distinguishable from siblings like git_status or git_diff, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 phrase 'optionally filtered by branch or path' implies the intended usage, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of alternatives such as git_status or git_diff for working-tree comparison versus commit history.

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