search_commits

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must carry the full burden of explaining behavior. It only states that it searches commits and by what fields, but does not disclose return format, pagination behavior, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a search tool.

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 sentence with no redundant information, front-loading the primary purpose. It is appropriately concise, though it could benefit from a second sentence on usage context without becoming verbose.

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 tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description doesn't mention return values, pagination, or any operational details beyond the basic search action. For a search tool with this complexity, the description is insufficiently complete.

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 schema already provides descriptions for 3 of 5 parameters (query, sort, order), covering 60%. The description adds a little semantic context by mentioning searchable fields (message, author, date), but doesn't fully compensate for the undocumented page and per_page. 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 clearly states the tool searches commits, specifying search criteria (message, author, date, etc.). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_commits or get_commit, which have different actions.

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 for finding commits by criteria, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this over list_commits or search_repositories, nor any exclusions or alternatives. It's a minimal context with no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use.

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