History

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it reveals important behavior: rename detection by identical body, following file moves, counting but not listing unrelated commits, and identifying the introducing commit. This is strong, though output details remain only loosely indicated via the git log -L comparison.

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?

Every sentence carries substantive information and there is no filler. However, the opening sentence is convoluted and passive, burying the basic 'what this tool does' under tracking details before a cleaner analogy appears.

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 gives rich behavioral rules and concrete invocation examples, but there is no output schema and the return format is only approximated by the git log -L analogy. Behavior around output_format and repo is not explained, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent.

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 must compensate. It explains location via examples (`path::name` or `path:line`) and shows ref usage with `--ref REF`, but repo and output_format are not described at all. Core parameters are covered, ancillary ones are not.

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 behavior: follow a code structure backwards through commits, including renames and the introducing commit. The git log -L analogy reinforces the purpose. It is somewhat dense and jargon-heavy, but still distinguishes this from the sibling tools.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you need history of a structure rather than a plain file or directory. It gives concrete shell invocations, but it does not explicitly compare against siblings or state when not to use it.

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