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 clear. The description adds the word 'bounded', which hints at pagination/limits, but this adds little beyond what the schema already exposes via limit and offset parameters.

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 one short sentence with no unnecessary words, making it easy to parse. However, for a tool with 14 parameters, it is arguably too terse, but conciseness rewards brevity, so it earns a 4.

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 high parameter count (14) and complexity, the description is completely inadequate. It provides no context on output structure, usage scenarios, or how to combine parameters, relying entirely on annotations and schema—which are themselves underspecified—to guide the agent.

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 14% (2 of 14 parameters have descriptions). The description does not explain any parameter semantics, leaving 12 parameters undocumented and the agent without guidance on how to effectively use filters, revision, author, or path arguments.

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 tool reads commit history with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like git_show_commit or git_diff, which also operate on commit history.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as git_show_commit or git_diff. It does not mention filtering options, prerequisites, or exclusions like 'use git_show_commit for a single commit'.

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