repo_search_commits

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Searches for commits' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with 10 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Searches for commits in a repository'), making it immediately clear. Every word earns its place, and there's no unnecessary elaboration.

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 complexity (10 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the search returns (e.g., commit metadata, links), how results are structured, or any behavioral constraints. For a search tool with many configuration options, more context is needed to help an agent use it effectively.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with all parameters well-documented in the input schema (e.g., 'fromCommit' as 'Starting commit ID', 'top' as 'Maximum number of commits to return'). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 'Searches for commits in a repository' clearly states the action (searches) and resource (commits in a repository), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this from potential sibling tools like 'repo_list_branches_by_repo' or 'repo_get_branch_by_name', which also operate on repositories but for different resources. The description is specific but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many sibling tools for repository operations (e.g., 'repo_list_branches_by_repo', 'repo_get_pull_request_by_id'), but the description doesn't indicate this is specifically for commit searches rather than other repository queries. No context, exclusions, or alternatives are mentioned.

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