list_commits

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns commit messages, authors, dates, and hashes, but does not mention pagination, default limits, authentication requirements, or read-only behavior. The word 'List' implies a safe read, but more detail would improve transparency.

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, well-formed sentence that efficiently communicates the action, scope, optional filter, and return fields. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 description is adequate for a simple listing tool, but lacks information about result ordering, max number of commits returned, pagination, and any prerequisites. With no output schema and no annotations, the description alone should fill these gaps to be fully complete.

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 covers all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The tool description only adds the concept of 'recent' and optional branch filtering, which is already reflected in the schema's branch parameter. No additional semantic value beyond the schema.

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 states a clear verb ('List') and resource ('commits in a repository'), and notes the optional branch filter. It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like get_commit (single commit) or list_branches (branches).

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 usage for retrieving commit history, but does not explicitly explain when to choose this tool over alternatives like get_commit or get_commit_diff. It mentions the branch filter as a condition, which is a light usage hint.

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