git_history_for_path

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses ordering (newest first) and included data (additions/deletions, subjects) but lacks disclosure of safety (it's read-only), error conditions (e.g., path not found), or any behavioral traits beyond the basic output.

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 of 14 words, front-loading the core purpose. However, the conciseness sacrifices completeness—key details like the meaning of 'additions/deletions' and 'subjects' are absent.

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 no output schema and minimal schema descriptions, the description should cover output format and parameter details more thoroughly. It explains the main output (commits with stats and subjects) but is incomplete for a tool with complex behavior and many siblings.

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 has no descriptions (0% coverage). The description explains 'path' implicitly as the file path to get history for, but 'limit' is not mentioned at all (its default 50 and minimum 0 are only in schema). Users may not know what the limit parameter controls.

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 verb 'List' and resource 'commits that touched a current path' with specifics: newest first, additions/deletions, and subjects. It distinguishes from siblings like 'git_history_for_symbol' which is for symbols, not paths.

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 use for file path history but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'commit_search' or 'papertrail_for_commit'. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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