history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the history is 'bounded' and scoped to a repository or path, but omits whether the operation is read-only (implied by 'Return'), commit ordering, branch scope, and error behavior. This is moderate disclosure with meaningful gaps.

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?

A single, clear sentence with no filler. The main action and object are front-loaded, and every word adds value. Perfectly concise.

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 moderate complexity and lack of annotations, the description leaves questions unanswered: whether it requires being inside a Git repo, whether it shows only the current branch, and the exact behavior of the limit parameter. The output schema likely covers return format, but the description could more fully contextualize the tool's behavior.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds partial meaning by referencing 'repository or relative path' for the path parameter and 'bounded' for the limit, but it does not explicitly define the limit as a maximum count or explain defaults, making it insufficient for full understanding.

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 returns Git commit history, scoped to the repository or a relative path. This specific verb-resource pairing distinguishes it from sibling tools like diff (which shows changes) and memory tools, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage must be inferred from the name and purpose; there is no guidance on choosing it over diff or capture.

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