ralph_git_context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool does (shows recent commits) but lacks details on traits like whether it's read-only, any rate limits, error handling, or output format. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior beyond basic functionality.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second elaborates without redundancy. Every sentence adds value by clarifying scope ('Ralph iteration commits') and utility ('providing context'). There is zero waste, making it efficient 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 no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is incomplete. It explains the tool's function but lacks context on behavioral traits, output details, or usage scenarios. For a tool that retrieves historical data, more information on what 'context' entails (e.g., commit messages, timestamps) would improve completeness.

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?

The input schema has 1 parameter with 100% description coverage, providing default and type info. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond implying 'recent' commits, which aligns with the 'count' parameter. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Get context from recent Ralph commits' and 'Shows recent Ralph iteration commits from git history'. It specifies the verb ('get', 'shows') and resource ('recent Ralph commits', 'Ralph iteration commits'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'ralph_git_commit' or 'ralph_git_status', which would require 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'providing context about what was done in previous iterations', which implies usage for historical context, but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. Without explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives, it falls short of higher scores.

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