papertrail_for_commit

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

The terms 'Cached' and 'historical' hint that this is a read-only, potentially stale lookup, which is useful given there are no annotations. However, the description does not disclose synchronization requirements, failure behavior, or output shape, so transparency is only partial.

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?

One terse sentence with no filler; it front-loads the core meaning ('Cached tracker items') and usefully enumerates the item types. Every word contributes to the tool's purpose.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain more about returned items, limit semantics, and how this tool differs from the many papertrail_* siblings. The current description provides only a minimal purpose statement and leaves important context unresolved.

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 50%: include and worktree are described, while limit and commit_hash are not. The description adds only the 'historical commit' nuance to commit_hash and says nothing about limit, so it does not compensate enough for the undocumented parameters.

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 identifies what the tool provides: cached tracker items (issues/change requests/reviews) associated with a given commit. It distinguishes from sibling papertrail_for_chunk/symbol/path by the commit scope, though it lacks an explicit retrieval verb like 'list' or 'fetch'.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus papertrail_for_symbol, papertrail_for_chunk, papertrail_issue_search, or other related siblings. The phrase 'historical commit' implies a context, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information is provided.

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