git_history_for_path

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 conveys read-only intent via 'List' and specifies ordering (newest first) and returned fields, but does not mention side effects (non-destructive), error behavior, or permission requirements. For a simple read operation, this is adequate 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 a single, compact sentence that delivers the core functionality without redundant words. It front-loads the purpose and key details, exemplifying conciseness.

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?

For a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is brief but covers primary purpose, ordering, and output highlights. It does not elaborate on output structure, pagination, or edge cases, leaving room for ambiguity. Adequate for a simple listing tool but not comprehensive.

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 33% (only worktree is described). The description only references 'path' vaguely as 'current path' and does not explain the limit parameter, its default, or the worktree parameter beyond the schema. It adds minimal value for the undocumented parameters, failing to compensate for the low coverage.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' and resource 'commits' with clear scoping to 'a current path', and notes ordering and output content (additions/deletions, subjects). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like git_history_for_symbol, which targets symbols rather than 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 usage for path-based commit history, providing clear context about what it does. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the sibling names (git_history_for_symbol, commits_touching_query) suggest differentiation. Lacks explicit exclusion clauses but has a clear purpose.

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