Commit Patterns

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows it is safe. The description adds valuable context about the analysis performed and specific patterns revealed (weekend deployments, late-night hotfixes, declining velocity), enhancing transparency beyond annotations.

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, front-loaded with key analysis types, followed by examples and a conditional note. Every sentence adds value, no wasted words.

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 output schema, the description explains the output in terms of distributions, heatmaps, breakdowns, and trends. It also covers the conditional requirement for repo_path. Misses explicit mention of return format (e.g., table or chart), but sufficient for selection.

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% with adequate descriptions for all three parameters. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema, aside from giving examples of output patterns. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 analyzes commit patterns including day-of-week distribution, hour-of-day heatmap, commit size breakdown, and weekly velocity trends, and distinguishes from sibling tools like hotspots, churn, etc. by focusing on temporal and size-based analysis.

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 provides a specific note about requiring repo_path if the server wasn't started in a git repo, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like contributor_stats or file_history. Usage context is implied but not differentiated.

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