list_commits

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one meaningful trait beyond the name: each commit includes file-level diff content, which signals a potentially large payload. It omits ordering (newest-first), truncation/limits on diff size, and any permission requirements, leaving real behavioral gaps for a read tool with no annotation coverage.

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 sentence with zero filler, and the most consequential detail (file-level diff content) is packed into the same clause rather than buried. Nothing is redundant with the title or restated unnecessarily.

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?

For a six-parameter list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what is returned at a high level (commits plus diffs) but not the shape of a commit record, ordering, or behavior under large histories. It is adequate to call the tool, but not complete enough to predict the response.

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 all six parameters including top, skip, and organization defaults are already documented in the schema. The description only restates branch scoping ('on a branch') and adds no format or interaction detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('List recent commits') plus scope ('on a branch'), which clearly separates it from create_commit and from diff-oriented siblings like get_pull_request_changes. It does not explicitly name a sibling to contrast with, so it stops short of a 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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The agent is not told whether to prefer this over get_pull_request_changes, get_repository_tree, or search_code when hunting for changes, nor are prerequisites (repo/branch access) mentioned. Usage is only implied by the verb.

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