bb_list_commits

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the sort order, per-commit fields, default-branch behavior, and pagination, which gives an agent a clear sense of what to expect. It does not cover edge cases like invalid branch names, but the disclosed traits are substantive.

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?

Three concise sentences front-load the core operation, then specify return fields, default behavior, and pagination. Every sentence adds information and there is no redundant filler.

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 moderately simple list operation, the description covers purpose, output shape, ordering, default branch, and pagination. The main gap is the missing semantics for the pagination parameters, which an agent needs for precise invocation. Overall it is nearly complete for correct use.

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 only 20%, so the description must compensate, but it only clarifies the 'branch' default and mentions 'Paginated'. It does not explain the semantics of 'start' and 'limit', nor the required 'projectKey' and 'repoSlug' fields. The pagination claim hints at those parameters but leaves their behavior ambiguous.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('List commits on a branch') and adds a meaningful ordering detail ('newest-to-oldest'). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like bb_get_commit (single commit) and bb_list_branches (branches), so an agent can distinguish it without opening schemas.

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 implies usage by describing the operation and noting that 'branch' defaults to the default branch. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as bb_get_commit or when to avoid it. The context is present but not explicit.

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