github_repos_list_commits

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds the 'newest first' ordering trait, but says nothing about pagination behavior, result caps, or rate limits that the annotations don't cover.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler; the ordering behavior is front-loaded and the filtering options follow compactly. Every clause earns its place.

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 9-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the key behavioral trait (ordering) and a map of the main filters. Pagination via page/perPage is only in the schema, a minor omission rather than a blocking one.

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 100%, so all nine parameters are already documented in the schema (including defaults for page/perPage and ISO 8601 format for since/until). The description only restates sha/path/since/until usage without adding format or edge-case detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List commits') plus an ordering guarantee ('newest first'), which is more than the name alone conveys. There is no sibling commit-listing tool to differentiate against, so the lack of explicit contrast is not a gap here.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent how to narrow results: `sha` for a branch, `path` for one file's history, `since`/`until` for a time window. This is clear usage guidance, though it never states when-not to use the tool or names an alternative tool for other commit-listing needs.

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