legalize_commits

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. It says 'list git commits' which indicates a read-only operation, but it doesn't describe what is returned (e.g., commit hashes, messages, dates), any pagination, or ordering. The term 'lightweight history' gives a hint but not enough detail for an agent to predict behavior.

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 concise sentence with no filler, tautology, or redundant phrasing. It conveys the core purpose efficiently and earns its place without any waste.

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 has two required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is underspecified. It fails to explain the return structure, parameter semantics, or how it compares to sibling tools like legalize_law_at_commit. The minimal detail leaves significant gaps for an agent deciding when and how to invoke it.

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%, and the description says nothing about the two required parameters (country and law_id). It does not explain how these parameters affect the commit list, what values they accept, or why both are required. The description completely fails to compensate for the schema's lack of context.

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 action (list git commits) and the resource (a law repository), and the qualifier 'lightweight history' distinguishes this as a summary-level view from more detailed sibling tools like legalize_law_at_commit. The verb and object are specific and unambiguous.

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 phrase 'lightweight history' implies when this tool might be used (for a quick commit list), but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. There is no direct comparison with sibling tools, so the guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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