Commit search

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond them: search is HEAD-only (not all branches), matching is literal rather than regex, matching is case-insensitive, and results are ordered newest first. It doesn't mention pagination or large-result behavior, but the HEAD-only constraint is a valuable disclosure.

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 tightly written sentences with zero filler. Scope, match semantics and ordering are front-loaded, and the second sentence covers use cases and optional filters compactly.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary. The description covers scope, matching semantics, ordering, usage and the optional filter dimensions, which is sufficient for correct invocation. Minor gaps remain around result-count behavior and multi-repo selection nuance, but the schema covers repo defaults.

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 days, path, repo, limit, query and author are all already documented in the schema. The description only restates that the search can be 'optionally limited to a time window, author and/or path', adding no format or edge-case detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when 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?

States a specific verb and resource (search commit messages), narrows scope to subject and body on HEAD, and specifies match semantics (literal, case-insensitive) plus result ordering (newest first). That level of detail lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like file_history or recent_activity without opening a schema.

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?

Gives concrete usage motivation and examples ('when and why something changed, e.g. a ticket id, a feature name or "revert"'), which tells the agent when this tool is the right pick. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to use it (e.g. vs. file_history for path-scoped history), so it misses the top tier.

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