Mooring

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

With no annotations provided, description carries full disclosure burden. It adds 'Formatted' indicating output style and notes default max_count (20), but omits safety characteristics (read-only nature), error behaviors (invalid repo_path handling), or output schema details (though output schema exists separately).

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?

Well-structured with purpose front-loaded in first sentence followed by parameter documentation. 'Args:' section is necessary given schema coverage gap, though slightly informal. No redundant sentences.

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?

Covers core functionality and parameters adequately given complexity. Missing sibling differentiation and behavioral edge cases, but acceptable since output schema exists to define return values and annotations are absent.

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?

Given 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by documenting all 6 parameters with clear semantics and constraints (e.g., default 20 for max_count, date example for since). Falls short of 5 by not detailing type constraints or format validation beyond single examples.

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 specific action (formatted commit log) and resource (git repository). Clearly distinguishes from GitHub API siblings (gh_*) by focusing on local repository operations, though could better differentiate from other local git tools like repo_diff or repo_blame.

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?

Provides no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives (e.g., repo_diff for changes, repo_blame for line attribution) or prerequisites. Only implies usage through filter descriptions.

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