list_commits

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

No annotations provided, so description should fully disclose behavior. It mentions it's a list operation and returns summaries, but does not declare it as read-only, discuss error behavior, or mention side effects. States 'No ADO connection needed' adds some 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?

Two clear sentences of introduction followed by a structured Args section. Concise without wasted words. However, the contradiction with schema regarding optionality is a clarity issue.

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 annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description should provide more context (e.g., error conditions, read-only nature, repository prerequisites). It covers parameters and a basic environment hint but leaves significant gaps for a tool with 4 required fields.

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?

Description adds meaning for each parameter (e.g., repo_path is absolute path, authors optional, since date format). However, it contradicts the input schema by labeling authors and since as 'optional' when schema lists them as required. This inconsistency undermines reliability.

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 clearly states it lists git commits from a local repository and specifies the fields returned (sha, message, author, date, repo name). No sibling tool does exactly this, so purpose is unambiguous.

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 implies usage for local repositories (no ADO connection) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. Missing guidance on prerequisites like repo existence.

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