Search commits by author

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the return shape (SHAs plus a REST path per commit) and a cross-provider invariance guarantee. However it says nothing about pagination, result limits, or whether a provider is required, which an agent needs before invoking a search.

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?

Two tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the value proposition second. The parenthetical reference to 'invariant #5' is an opaque pointer to documentation the agent cannot see, which costs a little clarity for the space it takes.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description rightly explains the return (SHAs + REST path), which is a good use of the space. But it implies 'in a repo' while repo is optional and only author is required, leaving the cross-repo search case unexplained, and pagination behavior is absent.

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 only 33% (only 'author' is documented), so the description must compensate. It usefully clarifies author as a 'login' and ties it to 'a repo', but leaves the provider parameter's relational meaning (defaults, whether it constrains the SHAs returned) to the enum alone.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Find commits authored by a given login in a repo'), which is unambiguous. No sibling tool covers commits, so there is little to confuse it with, but the description never explicitly contrasts itself with anything.

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?

Usage is only implied: the cross-reference sentence hints at a reason to call it, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative named. An agent can infer intent from the purpose statement alone, which is the definition of minimum-viable guidance.

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