list_commits

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the operation and its optional filters, but it does not describe pagination behavior, ordering of 'recent', or how the 'sha' parameter resolves against the repository's default branch. It adds some context (recent, filtering) and the statement is accurate, but the behavioral picture remains incomplete.

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 tightly structured 22-word sentence that starts with the verb, names the resource and scope, and then the filter options. There is no fluff, and every word carries semantic weight.

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?

Because an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values. However, given six parameters and no annotations, the description is the only behavioral source available; it does not explain branch/ref resolution or pagination tail behavior, leaving a competent but shallow picture for a first-time agent.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The description's filter semantics are useful for 'path' and 'author', but it leaves the meaning of 'sha' and the pagination/limit behavior of 'per_page' unexplained. The names 'owner' and 'repo' are self-evident, but the most ambiguous parameter, 'sha', gets no semantic help from the description.

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 verb ('List'), the resource ('recent commits for a repository'), and the optional scoping ('filtered by path or author'). It unambiguously identifies the operation and is easily distinguishable from the sibling tools, none of which list repository commits.

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 the use case — listing recent commit history for a repository, optionally narrowed by path or author — without explicitly doing so. It provides no exclusions or 'when not to use' guidance, but, since no sibling tool competes for the same operation, alternative routing is less critical.

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