list_commits

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies a read-only operation via 'list' but does not state return format, ordering, pagination, authentication requirements, or failure behavior. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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 sentence with no fluff, front-loading the main action. It earns a high score for brevity, though the brevity sacrifices detail elsewhere.

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?

For a tool with 4 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this one-sentence description is insufficient. It does not clarify the data source (repo/owner) or result limits, making it incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 description only hints at the 'path' parameter ('optionally scoped to a single file path') and ignores 'repo', 'owner', and 'max_results'. With 0% schema description coverage, three of four parameters remain semantically unexplained, leaving the agent to guess their meanings.

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 ('List') and resource ('commits'), and adds a scoping condition ('optionally scoped to a single file path') that differentiates it from sibling tools like list_branches or get_file_contents. This makes the purpose immediately clear.

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?

It clearly indicates when to use the tool: to see recent commits, optionally filtered by a file path. This provides enough context for a simple read operation, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, stopping short of full guidance.

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