git_log

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the scoping constraint that it reads the project's recent commit history, which aligns with the annotations but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as sorting, output format, or side effects. Since the description does not contradict annotations and adds only scoping context, a 3 is appropriate.

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 that states the tool's purpose without wasted words. The key information (viewing recent commit history) is front-loaded, and there is no extraneous repetition of schema or annotation content.

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 simple tool with one optional, well-documented parameter, a read-only annotation profile, and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and scope. It does not include when-to-use guidance, which would enhance completeness, but the low complexity and rich schema make the missing guidance a minor gap rather than a critical one.

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 100%, with the count parameter fully described as '要看最近幾筆 commit'. The tool description doesn't add information about parameters beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('查看' / view) and a specific resource ('專案最近的 git commit 紀錄' / recent git commit history of the project). It clearly distinguishes git_log from sibling tools like list_files, run_tests, and read_file, which handle different concerns. An agent can tell this is the tool for commit history at a glance.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of 'use when you need to inspect commit history' or any exclusion/alternative statements. The context signals only list sibling tool names, but the description itself does not state any selection criteria.

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