list_commits

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it lists commits, but does not mention pagination, default branch behavior, response format, or that it is a read-only operation. This leaves significant ambiguity for an agent.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified for a tool with 7 parameters. While conciseness itself is fine, the lack of necessary detail makes it less useful than it could be.

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?

With 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, a one-sentence description is incomplete. It does not cover pagination, filtering, usage scenarios, or expected output, leaving the agent with significant gaps in understanding.

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 only 43%, so the description should compensate for undocumented parameters. It does not add meaningful detail about parameters; the phrase 'on a repository branch' vaguely hints at the 'sha' parameter but does not explain defaults, filtering options, or how other parameters like 'page' or 'per_page' behave.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'commits' and scopes it 'on a repository branch', clearly indicating the action and object. It is clear enough to distinguish from sibling tools like get_commit or list_branches, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 or list_branches, nor any mention of prerequisites or typical scenarios. The description simply states the action without context.

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