show_branch_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses newest-first ordering, single-branch scope, text-mode behavior, and a Kiln Pro requirement, but it does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, pagination behavior, or what a returned commit entry contains.

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 useful purpose statement is front-loaded, which is good. However, two of the four sentences are promotional or subscription-related boilerplate ("Kiln Pro would preserve this version..." and the upgrade URL), which do not help an agent invoke the tool correctly.

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 covers the basic operation, ordering, scope, and plan gating. But with no annotations, no output schema, two undocumented required parameters, and no explanation of limit or annotate_outcomes, it does not provide enough context for an agent to understand the full contract of the call.

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 description does not explain any of the four parameters. The schema has only terse descriptions for limit and annotate_outcomes (defaults only) and none for the required design_id and branch_name, so the description leaves both required parameter formats and the meaning of annotate_outcomes unexplained despite only 50% schema description coverage.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource ("List the commits on a single branch"), adds ordering ("newest-first"), and explicitly distinguishes it as the "text-mode companion to visualize_branch_tree." An agent can identify the tool's purpose without opening the schema.

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 names visualize_branch_tree as a visual alternative, implying this tool is for textual branch history. However, it does not say when to choose this over sibling tools such as list_design_branches, compare_branches, show_reflog, or show_design_lineage, and gives no explicit exclusions beyond the Kiln Pro requirement.

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