gitlab_commit_list

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the safety profile, so the description's job is lighter. It adds no detail about ordering, default ref behavior, or result size limits; the pagination hint lives only in the schema, not the description. Adequate but thin beyond annotations.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded before the usage hint. Every clause earns 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the readOnly annotation covers the safety profile. What remains unstated — commit ordering and default-ref behavior — is minor for a simple list tool.

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%, with each parameter (ref, page, perPage, project) documented including encoding and page-size caps, so the baseline is 3. The description's phrase 'on a ref' adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Specific verb ('List') plus resource ('repository commits') and scope ('on a ref') make the purpose unambiguous. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing itself from near siblings such as gitlab_mr_changes, though the 'beyond the diff' phrasing gestures at the boundary.

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 second sentence gives a concrete when-to-use scenario: inspecting a merge request's source branch contents beyond the diff, which implicitly positions it against gitlab_mr_changes. No explicit when-not or prerequisite guidance is offered, but the context is clear.

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