Code MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Show commit history' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify output format, pagination behavior, error conditions, or whether it requires specific permissions. For a tool with 3 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and uses minimal words to convey the essential function. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose clearly but lacks behavioral context, usage guidelines, and output details. For a read-only tool with full schema coverage, it meets the baseline but doesn't provide the completeness needed for optimal agent understanding.

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 all parameters (limit, oneline, cwd) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain parameter interactions, default values, or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Show commit history' clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('show') and resource ('commit history'). It distinguishes this from obvious siblings like git_commit (create commits) or git_diff (show changes), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all possible siblings like compare_commits. The purpose is unambiguous but could be more specific about scope.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer git_log over other history-related tools like compare_commits or get_session_history, nor does it specify prerequisites (e.g., requires a git repository). Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.

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