Get Unreleased Commits

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds nothing further beyond the scope phrase — it does not say what happens when no tag exists, whether results are ordered oldest-first, or whether uncommitted/merge commits are included.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification given the tool has a parameter and multiple sibling alternatives.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is unnecessary, but the description still leaves key gaps for a 1-parameter tool: the meaning of use_test_db, the no-tag edge case, and how it differs from get_commit_history/search_commits. Adequate only for the narrowest reading of the purpose.

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 single parameter use_test_db has 0% schema description coverage and is not mentioned at all in the description, so an agent has no basis for deciding when to set it. The description therefore fails to compensate for the coverage gap on the only parameter that exists.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('commits') with an explicit scope qualifier ('since the last tag/release'), which is more precise than a generic commit fetch. It is reasonably distinguishable from siblings like get_commit_history or search_commits by the 'since last tag' boundary, though it never names those siblings to sharpen the contrast.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is named even though get_commit_history, search_commits, get_release_info and list_tags are all plausible neighbors. The release-prep use case is only weakly implied by 'since the last tag/release'.

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