list_commits

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states that it lists commits, with no mention of pagination behavior, default ordering, or that it returns a potentially paginated list. No significant behavioral context is added.

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 short sentence with no wasted words, which is good for front-loading, but it is under-specifying. It is concise but not informative enough to earn a higher score.

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 the eight-parameter schema and the presence of sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It fails to mention filtering options (since, until, path), pagination (page, per_page), or the ref_name and with_stats parameters. The output schema covers return values, but usage context is still lacking.

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%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter roles, but it does not. The description adds no meaning to the eight parameters, leaving the agent to infer semantics solely from parameter names and types.

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 ('List') and resource ('commits') with a scoping phrase ('for a project'). It clearly states the tool's basic function, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish it from siblings like get_commit or compare_commits.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_commit or compare_commits. There are no use-case scenarios, exclusions, or prerequisite conditions mentioned.

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