Git 日志

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, lowering the bar, and the description adds the semantic that it returns recent commit logs. However, it does not disclose filtering by path, how limit applies, or the shape/content of the returned logs.

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 single sentence is concise and front-loaded, but it is under-specified for a tool with three parameters and a family of closely related sibling tools. Brevity here is more a sign of missing content than of efficient structure.

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?

The tool has three parameters, no output schema, and close sibling git tools, yet the description only states what it returns. Key details such as path filtering, commit count limit, working-directory semantics, and how the output is formatted are absent, so it is not complete enough for reliable tool selection and invocation.

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 0%, so the description is the only place to explain cwd, path, and limit, but it does not mention any parameter. 'Recent' only weakly hints at the limit parameter; path and cwd remain entirely unexplained.

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 states a specific action ('return') and resource ('recent commit logs'), which clearly identifies the tool's purpose. The phrase 'commit logs' also distinguishes it from sibling git tools like git_status, git_diff, and git_show.

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 choose git_log over alternatives such as git_status or git_show. The description does not state conditions, exclusions, or context, so an agent must infer when this tool applies.

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