list_commits

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only says 'List repository commits with filtering options' and does not disclose pagination behavior, default branch fallback, response shape, or any side effects. The schema documents parameters, but the description itself adds little behavioral transparency beyond the tool's name.

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 and the verb-plus-resource structure is front-loaded. It is concise, though arguably too sparse to carry much contextual value.

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?

This is a moderately complex list tool with 13 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so more contextual guidance would help. However, the schema fully documents each parameter, making the description adequate but not complete for high-level usage context like defaults or how filters combine.

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 covers 100% of the 13 parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3 even without parameter information in the description. The phrase 'filtering options' adds no specific semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a clear operation ('List') and a clear resource ('repository commits'), and 'filtering options' signals that this is a list-with-filters tool. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_commit or get_commit_diff, though it does not explicitly name them.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_commit for a single commit or get_commit_diff for diffs. The description implies a listing use case but provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing.

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