list_commits

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds one behavioral fact beyond them — that results are 'recent' rather than the complete commit history — but says nothing about ordering, result cap, or what happens when branch/author/path yield no matches.

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?

A single compact sentence with no filler, and the resource is front-loaded. It is efficient but borders on under-specified rather than wasteful.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Still, for a six-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions, the definition leaves the limiting/integer parameter and project scoping unexplained and gives no usage context, which is thin relative to the tool's complexity.

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 carries the burden: it explains branch, author, path, and repository, including that path may be a file or folder. However, it never mentions the 'top' limit parameter (default 30) or 'project', leaving two of six parameters with no meaning anywhere, and gives no format hints (author name vs. email, path convention).

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 names a specific resource (commits of a repository) and explicitly lists the optional narrowing dimensions (branch, author, path). The word 'recent' signals a bounded listing rather than full history, so an agent can tell what it retrieves, though the sentence is a noun phrase with no verb and no sibling differentiation.

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?

It says nothing about when to choose this over browsing the repository (browse_repository) or fetching a single file's history. There is no mention of the 'top' default, ordering, or whether pagination exists, so an agent must infer usage entirely from the schema.

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