commit_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. 'Full-text search' strongly implies a read-only operation, and 'historical commit subjects and bodies' clarifies scope, but the description does not disclose ordering, result shape, limitations, or behavior around options like include and worktree. It is minimally transparent but not rich.

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 two concise sentences with the main verb and object front-loaded. Every word contributes to clarifying the tool's purpose, and there is no filler or repetition.

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 core invocation since query is the only required parameter and the rest have defaults. However, with seven parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and low schema coverage, the description leaves several behavioral and selection-relevant details unexplained, especially relative to many sibling search and commit-related tools.

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 only 29%, and the description only adds meaning for the query parameter by framing it as a keyword. It does not help with limit, explain, include, worktree, graph_limit, or include_graph, all of which require inference from names or schema defaults.

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 identifies the action as full-text search over historical commit subjects and bodies and ties it to the use case 'find when/why something changed by keyword.' It is specific about resource and scope, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling search tools like semantic_search or rationale_search.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as semantic_search, rationale_search, commits_touching_query, or git_history_for_path. The phrase 'find when/why something changed by keyword' implies a use case, but no exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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