List recent commits

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds meaningful behavior: results are newest first, and the returned sha must be truncated to ten hex characters before use in list_summaries. It doesn't fully describe the return shape, but this is still strong for a simple list operation.

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, main purpose first, critical downstream caveat second. There is no filler, no repetition of schema details, and every sentence earns its place.

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 simple optional-limit list operation, the description covers source, ordering, and the one non-obvious transformation an agent must apply (sha truncation). The lack of an output schema is partially mitigated by naming the returned sha field, though the full set of returned fields is not specified.

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 only parameter, limit, is fully described in the schema with default, minimum, maximum, and meaning, so schema description coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no parameter-specific detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('recently benchmarked commits from master_commits'), and ordering ('newest first'). This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling tools that deal with summaries or comparisons.

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 offers no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. The only workflow hint is the downstream instruction to truncate the sha before using it in list_summaries, but it never says when to choose this tool over siblings like list_summaries or compare_commits.

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