list_commits

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It only states that it lists commits, without covering pagination behavior, default branch fallback, output format, or any side effects. The schema hints at pagination via page/per_page, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the core action.

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 that immediately communicates the tool's purpose without any filler or redundancy. It is maximally concise for the information it conveys.

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 tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description plus the detailed schema provide adequate understanding of how to invoke it. However, the lack of guidance on return structure, pagination semantics, and differentiation from search_commits or get_commit leaves some gaps given the number of sibling tools.

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 78%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description's phrase 'branch específico' adds minimal value since the sha parameter's schema description already states 'SHA o branch'. With high coverage, the baseline of 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 uses the specific verb 'Lista' (lists) with the resource 'commits' and scopes it to 'repositorio o branch específico'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_commit (retrieves a single commit) and search_commits (searches commits), leaving no ambiguity about its core function.

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 through its clear purpose but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. It does not mention that search_commits is better for complex queries or get_commit for individual commits, which would help an agent select the correct tool.

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