commits_touching_query

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

With no annotations provided, the description explains the core behavior (combining two evidence sources) and indicates a read-only search operation. However, it omits details on side effects, performance implications, or permissions.

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, concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose, with no extraneous words or repetition of schema details.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is too brief. It leaves ambiguity about the role of parameters like 'worktree', 'include_graph', and 'explain', making it difficult to use the tool correctly without additional investigation.

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 tool description adds no extra meaning for parameters like 'explain', 'graph_limit', or 'include'. It relies entirely on the schema, which has sparse descriptions for most fields.

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 states the tool combines commit-message matches with file-change evidence for relational queries, with a concrete example ('what work relates to X?'). This distinguishes it from siblings like commit_search or semantic_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?

The description provides a clear use case ('what work relates to X?') and implies when not to use it (e.g., for simple commit message search), but falls short of explicitly naming alternatives or stating when to avoid.

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