git_log

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the vague scope word 'recent' and discloses nothing about pagination, default limits, or output shape that would go beyond structured data.

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 a single three-word phrase, which is front-loaded but under-specified rather than concise. It omits necessary information for an agent to determine scope and parameter usage, so the brevity does not earn its place.

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 git log tool, the description omits essential context about the path and limit parameters and when to use this versus related git tools. Annotations and an output schema cover safety and return values, but the remaining gaps leave the definition incomplete.

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 for two undocumented parameters (path, limit), but it says nothing about either. The word 'recent' loosely hints at a limit, but there is no useful semantics regarding what path means or how limit is applied.

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 clear resource (commit log) and a scope (recent), so an agent can tell this returns recent commits. It does not differentiate itself from sibling git tools like git_status or git_diff, which is why it falls 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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as git_status or git_diff. The implied use case is viewing commit history, but no conditions or exclusions are given.

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