Get Git History

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavior. It correctly indicates the return format (structured list with specific fields) and that data comes from HEAD. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, requires no authentication, or has no side effects. While these traits can be inferred, the description could be more transparent.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the purpose (returns a list of recent commits from HEAD). Every part is necessary and there is no wasted text.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is nearly complete. It specifies the fields returned (hash, author, date, message) and the source (HEAD). A small gap is that it does not mention the default commit count or the maximum (500) documented in the schema. Still, for a straightforward read operation, it is largely sufficient.

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?

The input schema covers the single parameter 'count' with a description, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description does not add any additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Per guidelines, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high and the description adds no extra value for parameters.

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 that the tool returns a structured list of recent commits from HEAD, specifying the exact fields (hash, author, date, message). This verb+resource+scope makes its purpose distinct from sibling tools like git_quick_squash, git_reword_commit, or git_rescue_reflog.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives. While the context of sibling tool names implies different operations, there is no guidance on when not to use it (e.g., for full history or filtered history). The description is adequate but lacks explicit usage boundaries.

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