emacs_git_log

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get commit log' and does not explain how results are returned, whether an Emacs buffer is opened, whether it is read-only, or how errors are handled. This is a minimal hint at best.

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, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. A tool with four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema needs more than a three-word phrase to be adequately specified.

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 lacks enough context for an agent to confidently invoke the tool. It does not explain what 'commit log' means in this Emacs context, how the output is presented, whether a branch or repo is required, or how this relates to the many sibling git tools. The absence of an output schema increases the need for descriptive completeness.

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 the parameters are already well-documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter context, which matches the baseline expectation for fully covered schemas.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('commit log'), which clearly identifies what the tool does and distinguishes it from related git tools like status, diff, or blame. However, it does not add scope details (e.g., current repository) or explicitly differentiate from siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as emacs_git_status, emacs_git_diff, or emacs_git_blame. The description does not mention prerequisites, common workflows, or situations where this tool is preferred.

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