list_commits

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It labels commits as 'recent' but does not define that (default limit 10, likely ordered by date). No mention of ordering, pagination, or rate limits. The behavior is underspecified.

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 sentence is concise but sacrifices detail. Front-loaded with the verb 'list', but the brevity leaves out important context. It earns its place but does not provide enough substance.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema not described, the description is incomplete. It does not mention output format, pagination, or how it differs from siblings like list_pull_requests. More context is needed for an agent to use it correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds the key fact that 'branch' is optional and used for filtering, which is not obvious from the schema alone. However, it does not describe 'limit' default, format of 'branch', or purpose of 'owner'/'repo'.

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 lists commits and mentions optional branch filtering. However, it does not explicitly specify that commits are from a repository (implied by required params), which could be clearer. It distinguishes from siblings like list_branches and list_issues 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus other list tools (e.g., list_pull_requests). There is no mention of typical use cases, prerequisites (e.g., repository access), or when not to use it.

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