git_log

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the basic action. It does not disclose the default max_count, sorting, or whether working tree changes are excluded. This leaves significant behavioral traits unmentioned.

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 wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficient, making the tool's purpose immediately clear.

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 is simple, has a full schema, and an output schema, so the description is sufficient for basic invocation. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral transparency, which are important for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior and choose it appropriately.

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?

Both parameters have descriptions in the input schema, providing 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so 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 clearly states the tool shows recent commit history, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like git_status and git_diff by focusing on the log of commits, not the current state or changes.

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 usage context (when you need to see commit history) but does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it provide any exclusions or trade-offs. The presence of sibling tools like git_log and git_diff suggests that guidance would be beneficial, but the simple nature of the tool makes the implied usage acceptable.

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