Rescue Lost Commits via Reflog

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It describes the read-only scanning behavior and identifies lost commits, but does not explicitly state non-destructiveness, permissions, or output format. Some behavioral details are implied but not confirmed.

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 sentence that is moderately dense but front-loaded with the action. Every clause adds value, though it could be slightly restructured for readability. No wasted words.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description covers the tool's core function and use cases. However, it lacks explicit details on the return format (e.g., list of hashes) and does not fully compensate for the missing output schema, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (none defined). The description adds context beyond the empty schema by explaining the tool's purpose and usage, meeting the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools.

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 scans the git reflog and object database to identify HEAD movements and dangling/lost commits, with specific examples like bad rebase or hard reset, and explains the purpose (recovery by hash). It is distinct from siblings (history, squash, reword) which handle different tasks.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (to find lost commits from rebase or hard reset) and implies recovery by hash. It does not list exclusions or alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to understand its specialized role.

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