list_commits

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

Despite no annotations, the description does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, what authentication or permissions are required, or any rate limits or side effects. It only describes the response format, leaving the agent unaware of behavioral constraints.

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 compact (three sentences) and front-loads the usage context. It could be slightly tighter, but it efficiently conveys purpose, response format, and parameter notes without redundancy.

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 description covers purpose, response fields, and key parameters. However, it omits details on pagination, ordering, error handling (e.g., invalid branch), and authentication requirements. Given no output schema and no annotations, these gaps reduce completeness.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description restates schema defaults for 'branch' and 'limit' but adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 explicitly states the tool reviews commit history for a repository branch and lists the fields returned. It distinguishes from sibling tools by naming list_branches and get_repo, making the purpose clear and specific.

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 states when to use ('when you need to review commit history for a repository branch') and references sibling tools (list_branches, get_repo) for context. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use or exclusion scenarios, which would make it a 5.

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