reflog_signals

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the local-only scope and that no network access is used (via the cwd parameter description), and explicitly states what data is omitted from the result. This goes beyond a bare restatement, though it does not detail output format or potential side effects.

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, front-loaded sentence: it leads with the verb and resource, then specifies constraints. Every clause adds value, with no filler or duplication of schema information.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and simple summarization behavior, the description provides enough context about scope, input, and output nature (count and age bucket). It does not specify the exact return structure, but the phrase 'by count and age bucket' is sufficiently clear for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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% for the single parameter 'cwd', including a meaningful description ('Local Git repository path; no network access is used'). The tool description adds no further parameter-level detail, but the schema already provides the necessary semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Summarize') and resource ('local reflog activity'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like recovery_signals and stash_signals. The explicit exclusion list (no ref names, hashes, subjects, paths, remotes) further sharpens the purpose.

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?

Clear context is given: use this when you need a high-level summary of local reflog activity grouped by count and age. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the sibling names imply distinct git data sources (recovery, stash), making the intended scope evident.

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