list_branch_commits

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'detailed information' but doesn't specify what details are included (e.g., commit hash, author, date, message) or behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, or error handling. The description is vague and lacks critical operational context for a tool with 10 parameters.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly listing key filtering options. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, pagination behavior, or error cases, leaving significant gaps for the agent. Without annotations or output schema, the description should provide more context on what 'detailed information' entails and how results are structured.

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 description coverage is 100%, with all parameters well-documented in the input schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying filtering options ('with detailed information and filtering options'), but doesn't provide additional semantics, examples, or clarification on parameter interactions. This meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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's purpose as 'List commits in a branch with detailed information and filtering options,' which specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('commits in a branch'), and scope ('detailed information and filtering options'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_branches' (which lists branches) and 'list_pr_commits' (which lists commits for pull requests), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'list_directory_content' or 'search_code' in terms of commit-specific filtering.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_pr_commits' for pull request commits or 'search_code' for code search, nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for usage. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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