get_commits_for_work_item

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 discloses the non-obvious search mechanism (commit messages, #ID format), but does not describe return format, pagination behavior, or limitations (e.g., commits that don't include the #ID won't be found). This is adequate but leaves some 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose and method without any filler. Every word contributes to understanding.

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 no annotations, the description covers the essential semantics of the tool. It explains what it finds and how. It could mention the return format explicitly, but the name 'get_commits' implies a list of commits, and the schema parameters are already described. Overall sufficiently complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value by specifying the '#ID' convention, clarifying how workItemId is matched against commit messages—something not obvious from the schema 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 uses a specific verb 'Find' with a clear resource ('commits') and association ('work item ID'), and explains the mechanism ('searches commit messages for #ID'). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_commits (which lists all commits) and get_prs_for_work_item (which finds PRs).

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when you need commits associated with a work item via a #ID reference. It doesn't explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, but the sibling list makes the differentiation obvious, and the mechanism provides clear context.

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