List repository commits

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds useful defaults (ref omitted -> default branch) and the optional path filter, but says nothing about ordering ('recent' is undefined), page size, or pagination behavior despite a page parameter.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope. The docs URL is minor overhead but reasonable; nothing is redundant.

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 read-only listing tool with annotations carrying the safety profile, the description covers the essential calling semantics (ref default, path filter). Gaps remain around the undocumented page parameter and the shape/ordering of returned commit entries, since no output schema exists.

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 25% (only repo documented), so the description has to compensate. It does explain ref (defaults to default branch) and path (only commits touching it), but the page parameter is never mentioned in either schema or description — a real documentation hole.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List recent commits of a Lizard Git repository') with clear scope modifiers (at a ref, optionally restricted to a path). This distinguishes it in practice from siblings like repo_commit and repo_show, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Implies when to use it via the ref/path scoping, and clarifies the default-branch fallback when ref is omitted. But it never says when to prefer repo_show, repo_commit, or another history tool, nor any exclusions.

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