git_log

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention that the tool is read-only, safe, or what the output format will be. The examples hint at output style ('full details', 'oneline') but do not clarify safety or side effects.

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 concise, starting with a short purpose statement, followed by a usage instruction, and concrete examples. Every sentence is useful with minimal redundancy. The examples are well-structured.

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's simplicity (no required params, no output schema), the description covers basic usage adequately. However, it lacks information on return format, pagination, or error behavior. For a simple read tool, it is mostly complete but could be more thorough.

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% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description adds example usages illustrating the parameters' effects, but does not provide additional semantic meaning beyond the schema defaults and descriptions.

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 'Show commit history', which defines the tool's purpose as viewing the repository's commit log. It is specific and aligns with the tool name, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_operation_logs or get_push_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?

The description provides a basic usage instruction ('Call this tool to view the commit history'), implying when to use it. However, it lacks guidance on when not to use it or alternatives among sibling tools, such as using get_operation_logs for operation logs.

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