commits_touching_query

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions combining evidence but does not disclose behavioral traits like whether it performs read-only operations, potential side effects, or performance implications. It adds some context about the query scope but lacks depth for a complex tool.

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 is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It earns its place by explaining the combination of evidence types, though it could be slightly more structured with a second sentence for usage context.

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's complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimal. It does not explain return values, pagination, or how the graph modes affect output. The schema provides some parameter details, but the description leaves gaps for a tool that likely returns complex results.

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%, so the description should compensate. It does not explain parameters beyond the schema, but the schema itself has descriptions for 'include' and 'worktree'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so it relies on the schema, which is partially covered.

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 a query, which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It distinguishes from siblings like commit_search and semantic_search by emphasizing the combination of messages and file changes, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 implies usage for 'what work relates to X?' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like commit_search or semantic_search. It provides a clear context but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative guidance.

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