papertrail_for_commit

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. Only mentions 'Cached', implying possible staleness, but does not describe caching behavior, authentication needs, rate limits, or whether the operation is safe or destructive.

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?

Single sentence conveys core purpose without redundancy. However, it could be expanded with minimal extra detail without becoming verbose.

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 multiple sibling tools, description lacks information on return format, pagination, or how to interpret results. The term 'Cached' is not explained, leaving uncertainty about data freshness.

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 (33%), only the 'include' parameter has a description. The tool description does not elaborate on any parameter (e.g., commit_hash format, limit meaning), failing to compensate for the sparse schema.

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 retrieves cached GitHub issues, PRs, and reviews related to a historical commit, distinguishing it from sibling tools like papertrail_for_symbol and papertrail_for_chunk. The verb 'gets' and resource 'GitHub issues/PRs/reviews' are specific.

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 versus alternatives such as commit_search or papertrail_for_symbol. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite conditions mentioned.

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