commit_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates 'search' implying a read operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination, ordering, performance considerations, or whether it is read-only. The description is minimal beyond stating basic functionality.

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 sentence that conveys the core purpose efficiently. However, it lacks structure or front-loading of key details. It is concise with minimal waste, but could benefit from additional contextual sentences.

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?

Given the tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, behavior with multiple matches, or any other contextual cues. The description leaves the agent to infer too much from the schema alone.

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 low (29%). The tool description does not add any parameter details to compensate. While some parameters like 'include' and 'worktree' have descriptions in the schema, the overall lack of parameter context from the description leaves the agent with incomplete understanding of how to use parameters effectively.

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?

Description clearly states it performs full-text search on commit subjects and bodies to find when/why something changed. The verb 'search' and resource 'historical commit subjects and bodies' are specific. However, it could be more distinct from siblings like 'commits_touching_query' or 'git_history_for_symbol' which also deal with commit history.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it or provide comparative context with sibling tools like 'commits_touching_query' or 'papertrail_for_commit'. The description assumes the agent knows its appropriate use case.

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