List the commits of a gist

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

The annotations already signal readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context: results are ordered most recent first and the returned SHAs are usable for accessing older revisions. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 with no filler. The core action and ordering are front-loaded, and the follow-up usage note earns its place by connecting this tool to the related get_gist/get_gist_file tools.

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 read-only list operation with full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description is complete. It explains what is returned, the order, and how the results connect to a real downstream use case.

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%, with gistId, page, and perPage all documented inline. The description adds contextual meaning by framing the output as commit history containing reusable SHAs, but it does not add significant parameter-level detail beyond the schema.

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 specific verb and resource: 'List the commit history of a gist.' It also clarifies the ordering ('most recent first') and distinguishes the tool from the related read tools get_gist and get_gist_file by explaining how the commit SHAs produced here can be used there.

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 gives clear usage context: call this to get the commit history, then use a commit SHA with get_gist or get_gist_file to read an older revision. It does not spell out exclusions or alternatives beyond these read tools, but the intended workflow is clear.

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