mind_log

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

The description discloses behavioral traits such as 'newest first' and 'per-commit change counts and authorship.' However, with no annotations provided, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or has no side effects, which is a notable omission for a tool of this kind.

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 sentence that is both concise and front-loaded with the 'git log' metaphor. It efficiently conveys purpose and key details without waste.

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?

The tool is simple with two optional parameters and an output schema. The description adequately explains what the tool does, but it could briefly mention the effect of the limit parameter or explicitly state read-only behavior. Overall, it is sufficient for the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 100% and each parameter (limit, branch) is described in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 what the tool does: 'git log for the user's mind: the branch's commit history, newest first, with per-commit change counts and authorship.' It specifies the resource (branch commit history) and output details, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like mind_diff or mind_state.

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 for viewing commit history but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks exclusions or comparisons with sibling tools, so guidance is only implicit.

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