Git log

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds 'on the host' which is minor. However, it does not disclose behavioral details like whether a valid git repository is required, error handling for non-repo paths, or the format of the returned commit list. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description adds little beyond that.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence, front-loading the core action and resource. There is no wasted wording, and the sentence is immediately understandable. It could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose, but it earns high marks for brevity.

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?

While an output schema exists, the description lacks essential context: it doesn't mention that the tool requires a valid git repository path, what happens if the path is invalid, or how count affects the result. It also doesn't hint at parameter semantics (covered above). For a tool with two parameters and no schema descriptions, this is insufficient for confident invocation.

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 the description provides no explanation of the 'path' or 'count' parameters. It doesn't clarify that 'path' points to a repository directory or that 'count' limits the number of commits (with default 10). The description 'recent commits' implies a limit but doesn't map to parameters, leaving the agent to guess. This is a significant gap given zero schema coverage.

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 the action (show recent commits) and the resource (repository on the host). It distinguishes itself from siblings like git_status (status), git_diff (changes), and git_branch (branches), though it doesn't explicitly name them. The verb 'show' and noun 'recent commits' make the purpose unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as git_show, git_blame, or git_status. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites (e.g., being inside a git repository), or conditions that would make this tool preferable. The agent must infer its purpose from the name and minimal description.

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