Recent activity

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety burden is lifted. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: results are scoped to HEAD (not all refs) and returned newest-first, which shapes interpretation of results.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the core behavior and ordering front-loaded before the optional filters. Every clause carries information.

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?

With a 100%-covered schema, full annotations, and an output schema covering return values, the description is nearly sufficient. Minor gap: with a repo parameter present, 'HEAD' is ambiguous about which repository's HEAD is used when multiple repos are configured.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning the schema lacks: author matching is a case-sensitive substring, and path is repository-relative. It says nothing extra about days, limit, or repo beyond what the schema documents.

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 (list), resource (commits), scope (on HEAD, last N days), ordering (newest first), and filter dimensions. It's clearly distinguishable from search-oriented siblings like commit_search or file_history, but it never names an alternative, so it falls just short of the top tier.

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?

Usage is implied by the scope: a recent-commits listing for a time window. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to sibling tools such as commit_search or contributor_summary, leaving the agent to infer selection.

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