audit_git_commits

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool reads git history, extracts changed files, and runs static analysis, implying read-only behavior. However, it does not explicitly state whether it modifies anything, performance implications, or any side effects. It provides moderate transparency but not full detail.

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 two sentences, concise and directly to the point. It succinctly states the purpose, the actions taken, and the output. No redundant or vague language, making it easy for an agent to grasp the essentials quickly.

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 tool's complexity (6 parameters, multiple analysis aspects), the description provides a good overview of what is returned and the general process. It does not explain edge cases or fail conditions, but for an audit tool this is often sufficient. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by describing the return structure (grades, findings, violations).

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 coverage is 100% for all six parameters, each with a descriptive comment. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond these comments. Per the baseline rule for high coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not enrich parameter understanding.

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: 'Audit recent git commits in a repository.' It further specifies actions (extracts changed files, runs static analysis for security and complexity) and outputs (per-commit grades, security findings, complexity violations), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_security_score or analyze_complexity.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios where one would prefer this over running individual analysis tools or provide exclusions. The description implies usage for auditing commits, but lacks direct comparative or contextual instructions.

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