github_list_commits

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. It does not mention pagination behavior, default branch behavior when sha is omitted, result ordering, or how date filters apply. These are notable gaps for a tool with no annotation-based safety or behavior hints.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to communicating the core purpose and the key optional capability.

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 tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is thin. It omits key operational context such as default branch handling, pagination defaults, response shape, and the relationship between since/until filters. The schema covers parameter names but not the full call context.

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 well. The description adds only the idea of 'branch' and 'date range filters', which mostly restates schema info and does not meaningfully deepen parameter understanding beyond the structured definitions.

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 clearly states a specific action ('List commits') and resource ('on a branch') with optional date filters, which distinguishes it from siblings like PR listing and single-commit retrieval. However, it says 'on a branch' while the sha parameter explicitly accepts tags and commit SHAs, so the scope is slightly narrower than reality.

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 implies this is the tool for listing commit history, and the optional date range filters hint at a use case. But it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings like github_get_commit or github_compare_commits, nor does it mention that listing the default branch requires no sha.

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