commit_story

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it states what information is returned, it doesn't mention error handling (e.g., invalid hash), performance characteristics, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it requires network access to GitHub. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that appears to query external systems.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality. Every element (commit hash input, returned information) earns its place without redundancy. It could be slightly more structured but remains highly concise.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers what information is returned but lacks details on behavioral aspects (errors, performance, dependencies) and output structure. Given the complexity of integrating commit, PR, and issue data, more context would be helpful, but the description meets minimum viable standards.

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 schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., hash format examples, repo_path implications). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('returns the full story') and resources (commit hash, commit message, files changed, pull request, PR description, GitHub issues). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'search_commits' by focusing on detailed information for a single commit rather than searching across commits.

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 usage when detailed commit information is needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_commits' (for finding commits) or 'file_history' (for file-specific history). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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