show_reflog

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does state 'Requires Kiln Pro,' which is a useful access condition, but says nothing about permissions, return format, pagination, or whether the listing is read-only. The remaining text is unrelated upsell copy.

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 first sentence is front-loaded and useful, but the next two sentences are promotional copy unrelated to invoking the tool. They do not earn their place in a tool definition, so the description is not appropriately structured despite being short.

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 four-parameter listing tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only 25% schema description coverage, the description is materially incomplete. It omits all parameter filtering semantics and return behavior, while spending most of its length on an upgrade link.

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 schema has four parameters and only 25% description coverage; the description adds no explanation for limit, branch_id, artifact_id, or artifact_type. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate but instead contains no parameter semantics at all.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'List head-mutating operations newest-first.' That is clear enough for an agent to know it is a reflog-style listing tool. It does not differentiate itself from siblings such as get_reflog_entry or restore_from_reflog_entry, and the later promotional sentences dilute focus.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternatives. It implies a reflog viewing use case from the word 'List,' but does not tell the agent when to choose this over sibling tools like show_branch_history or get_reflog_entry.

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