git_log

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it says almost nothing: no read-only confirmation, no ordering (newest-first?), no default of 10 commits, no behavior when the repo path is invalid or is not a git repository. 'Recent' is the only behavioral hint.

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 zero waste, but the brevity comes from under-specification rather than discipline. There is nothing to front-load because there is essentially one clause.

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 with no annotations and 0% schema coverage on two parameters, the description leaves the agent guessing about scope, defaults, and safety. For a tool with parameters and no structured documentation, this is inadequate.

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% and neither parameter is mentioned: 'repo' (defaults to '.') and 'max_count' (defaults to 10) are completely undocumented in both schema and description. 'Recent' loosely gestures at a limited window but gives no default or range guidance.

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 verb ('Show') and resource ('commits') with a recency qualifier, so the basic intent is legible. However, it does not distinguish this from siblings like git_show (single commit detail) or git_diff, and never mentions that the log is scoped to a repo. Purpose is vague rather than specific.

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 versus git_show, git_blame, or git_diff, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name.

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