get_recent_commits

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the burden of behavioral clarification. The verb 'get' communicates a read-only operation, and the mention of commits and authors indicates the returned data. However, it does not disclose pagination, ordering, rate limits, auth requirements, or possible failure modes.

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 or redundant information. Every word contributes to identifying the action and the resource.

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?

The the tool is simple: three scalar parameters, two required, and an output schema exists, so return values do not need to be described. The description plus the input schema is broadly sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool, though the exact meaning of 'recent' and the limit parameter is left to inference.

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 the description needs to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation. It provides only a high-level hint that the resource is a GitHub repository and that commits are recent; it does not explain how 'owner', 'repo', or 'limit' should be used or that limit defaults to 10.

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 names a specific operation ('get'), a concrete resource ('recent commits'), and the expected result ('and their authors') for a GitHub repository. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that target repository info, issues, or workflow runs.

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 wording implies this tool should be used when an agent needs commit history and author information, but it never explicitly states when to prefer it over get_repository_info, get_open_issues, or get_workflow_runs. There is no when-not-to-use or alternative guidance, so the usage context is only implied.

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