List Story 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 only states the core action and does not mention read-only nature, pagination, ordering, authentication, or what exactly is returned. This is minimal and lacks useful context.

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, clear sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. It contains no fluff and earns every word.

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 simple list tool, the description is adequate but lacks important context. It does not explain what commit information will be returned (e.g., hash, message, author), nor does it clarify how this differs from similar tools. With no output schema, more detail about the return format would improve completeness.

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 has no descriptions for its parameters and the description provides zero parameter information. The required story_id is inferable from context, but dry_run is completely unexplained. With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent without understanding of key parameters.

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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Git commits') with clear context ('associated with a Shortcut story'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_story_branches and list_story_pull_requests by focusing on 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 when to use the tool (when you need commits for a story) but provides no explicit alternatives or exclusions. Given the large number of sibling list tools, some guidance on when to choose this over others would be valuable, but it is not misleading.

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