commits_for_session

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the tool does not guess commit intent when no link exists, which is a meaningful non-obvious behavior. It also indicates it returns link evidence and git metadata, providing context beyond the schema. However, it does not detail error handling or exact output structure.

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 two sentences long and immediately states the core action. Every phrase adds value, particularly the clarification about not guessing intent. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 description covers the main purpose and a key behavioral caveat, but with no output schema present, it could have offered more detail on what 'link evidence' and 'git metadata' include. It also does not mention the default/max limit behavior, leaving some nuance to the schema alone.

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 100%, so all parameters (session_id, limit, project) are already described. The description text adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it scores at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('git commits linked to a session ID'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like lookup_commit. It also clarifies it returns link evidence plus git metadata, leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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 makes clear this tool is for listing commits linked to a session ID, implying it should be used when you have a session ID and need associated commits. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of full usage guidance.

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