Get Commit History

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'current repository' scope, but it does not mention pagination, default limits, sorting behavior, or filtering semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 with no wasted words. It is concise, though extremely minimal for a tool with eight parameters and several related siblings.

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?

The output schema and annotations cover return values and safety behavior, and the input schema covers most parameters. However, the description does not explain when to choose this tool over search_commits or other commit-related siblings, leaving a meaningful contextual gap.

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 88%, so the schema already documents nearly all parameters, including ref, path, scope, since, sortBy, maxCount, and techDebtAudit. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, and the undocumented use_test_db parameter is not compensated for, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a clear verb and resource: retrieve commit history for the current repository. It is specific enough to identify the operation, but it does not distinguish this tool from siblings such as search_commits or get_unreleased_commits.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_commits, get_unreleased_commits, or analyze_commit_patterns. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'retrieve commit history'.

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