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 burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention ordering, pagination, result limits, or any side effects. The only behavioral hint is 'defaults to all' for the branch parameter, which is more parameter semantics than behavioral transparency.

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 extremely concise: a one-line purpose followed by a structured argument list. It is front-loaded with the main action and contains no unnecessary words or repetition. Every sentence and argument 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?

The description covers the essential purpose and all parameters, and an output schema exists, so return structure is not required. However, 'recent' is undefined, with no mention of how many commits are returned or their ordering. It also lacks any context on limitations or alternatives, making it a minimum viable description rather than a complete 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, with all parameters as generic strings and empty defaults. The description compensates fully by explaining each parameter: 'branch' is optional and defaults to all, 'workspace' is a slug, and 'repo' is a slug. This provides clear meaning beyond the schema, fully covering the gap.

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 'List recent commits, optionally filtered by branch' – a clear verb+resource+scope. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'pr_commits', which also lists commits (for a pull request). The context of workspace/repo/branch parameters implies repository-wide commits, but the lack of explicit sibling differentiation keeps it from a 5.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pr_commits or browse_source. It only states its function and parameters, with no mention of ideal contexts, exclusions, or alternatives. This leaves the agent to infer usage on its own.

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