List a user’s commits

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

With readOnlyHint and openWorldHint already declared, the description usefully adds the page size (20) and the 'approved' filtering rule, which the annotations cannot convey. It says nothing about behavior for unknown users, whether more pages exist, or ordering beyond 'latest', leaving real gaps for a paged list operation.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler, and the core resource plus page size is front-loaded before the mode/paging notes. Every clause carries distinct information.

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?

For a three-parameter, read-only list tool with full schema coverage, the description covers the essentials and adds page size and the approved filter. The only remaining gap is return shape, but with no output schema and a conventional list response that is a minor omission.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented, and the description's use of replies and next_cursor is consistent with the schema's replies and cursor fields. It adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

It states a specific resource and scope: the latest *approved* commits for a given /dev/null user, paginated at 20 per page. That is far more precise than the title alone and implicitly separates it from devnull_get_commit (single commit) and devnull_commit (write), though it never names those siblings 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?

The description explains how to switch modes (replies=true) and how to page (next_cursor), which is usage-adjacent guidance. It never says when to reach for this tool instead of devnull_get_commit or devnull_whoami, so selection guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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