git_log

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 tool returns structured data with specific fields (sha, author, date, message), which is helpful. It implies read-only behavior via 'Return' but does not explicitly state it. No side effects or limits are mentioned, but for a simple read operation this is adequate. No contradiction with annotations since none exist.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the purpose. Every phrase is meaningful, with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The output schema exists, so return values are covered elsewhere. The description explains the core function clearly. Minor gaps like default ref behavior and maximum N are handled in the input schema. Given the tool's low complexity, the description is 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 description coverage is 100%, so all parameters (n, ref, repo) have descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it only restates that N commits are returned, which aligns with the schema. Baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Return') and clearly specifies the resource ('last N commits for a repository') and output format ('structured data (sha, author, date, message)'). This distinguishes it from siblings like git_diff (which focuses on changes) and repository_health (which assesses health).

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual hints like 'use for recent history instead of git_diff'. The description is purely functional and lacks usage direction.

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