개정 이력 (git log)

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers safety, and the description adds minimal context (path scope and a README reference). It does not disclose behavioral details such as default limit/format behavior or how fileName granularity works, which remain in the schema.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary details.

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 simple read-only nature and lack of output schema, the description is minimally adequate but omits context about return value structure or when to use it relative to siblings. It relies heavily on the tool name and schema.

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 50% (lawDir and fileName) but limit and format lack descriptions. The tool description does not compensate by explaining these parameters, leaving their semantics to the schema's defaults and enums.

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 returns a git log for a specified law path, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like kr_diff (which deals with diffs) and kr_read_file (which reads content) by naming 'git log' explicitly.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like kr_diff or kr_file_at_date. The description only mentions 'README의 git log' without explaining contexts, exclusions, or relative advantages.

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