List Commits

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, fully covering the safety profile. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond the schema (e.g., pagination or return format), but it is consistent with the read-only nature, so no contradiction exists.

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, front-loaded sentence of 12 words, with no wasted language. It efficiently conveys the action, target, and optional filter.

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 simple two-parameter, read-only tool with comprehensive annotations and schema, the description is sufficient. It identifies the target (agent's git repo), the action (list commits), and the optional filter (branch). The lack of an output schema is acceptable because the return type (a list) is clearly implied.

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% for both agent_id and branch, with the branch parameter already described as 'Branch to filter commits by'. The description merely restates this optional filter, adding little semantic value beyond what the schema 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?

The description uses a specific verb 'List' with a clear resource 'commits for an agent's git repo' and notes the optional branch filter. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like lyzr_git_list_branches or lyzr_git_list_repo_files by targeting commit history specifically.

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 you need to see commit history) but does not explicitly state when to use this over related git tools like lyzr_git_get_commit_snapshot or lyzr_git_list_branches. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, so guidance is only implied.

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