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 agent knows it is a safe read operation. The description adds the 'bounded' behavior, indicating that the history returned is limited by parameters such as limit/since/until, which is useful context. However, it does not describe pagination, default limits, or filtering capabilities, so it adds only modest value beyond the annotations.

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 extremely short (four words), but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. A single sentence is fine if it conveys the core behavior, but here it lacks sufficient detail about capabilities. It is front-loaded, but every word does not earn its place because it omits essential information about filters, pagination, and usage.

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 tool has 13 parameters and no description of those parameters, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the filtering, pagination, or commit selection options. Even though an output schema exists (so return values need not be described), the description fails to communicate the tool's full behavior, leaving the agent to infer how to use parameters like path, author, merges, and offset.

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 8% (only repositoryId is documented), so the description must compensate for the 12 undocumented parameters. However, the description says only 'Read bounded commit history' and explains none of the parameters (e.g., to/from, since/until, author, path, merges, offset, firstParent). It adds no meaning beyond the schema's property names and constraints.

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 'Read bounded commit history' uses a specific verb ('read') and resource ('commit history'), with a qualifier ('bounded') that indicates limited scope. This clearly identifies the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from sibling tools like git_show_commit (single commit) or git_diff (changes), though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or context. For example, it does not say 'use git_show_commit for a single commit' or when to prefer git_log over git_range_diff.

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