git_log

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond it: no ordering of commits, no default depth behavior, no note that truncated history is returned. It does not contradict the annotations, but it contributes no behavioral context.

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?

A single short sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though efficiency here comes at the cost of the detail the description should have carried.

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 values need not be explained. But for a tool with two undocumented parameters, a near-duplicate sibling, and a real "recent" scoping question, the description leaves the agent without enough to call it deliberately rather than by guessing.

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 0% for two parameters; only titles and defaults exist. "Recent" loosely hints at max_count but never states the default of 10 or that omitting it truncates results, and 'repo' (defaulting to ".") is entirely unexplained — is it a path, a name, the current directory? The description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

"Show recent commits" names a verb and resource, so the basic action is inferable. However, the sibling set contains git_recent_history, git_show, git_blame, and git_status, and the description does nothing to distinguish git_log from git_recent_history in particular. An agent must guess between two near-identical tools.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer for history-style queries. With git_recent_history present, the absence of routing guidance is a real cost rather than a stylistic gap.

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