list_commits

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions the return fields and 'recent' commits, but does not explicitly state read-only nature, pagination behavior, or auth requirements. Adequate but with gaps in depth.

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?

Three sentences: first describes the action, second gives usage triggers, third describes return values. Each sentence earns its place, front-loaded with the primary purpose, no fluff.

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 simple list tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers what it returns and when to use it. It lacks explicit pagination detail and read-only confirmation, but the schema's perPage parameter and sibling context fill some gaps. Overall sufficiently complete.

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 100%, so each parameter is already well-documented (owner, repo, perPage). The description does not add extra parameter semantics beyond returning fields, which are not parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool lists recent commits from a GitHub repository, with a specific verb 'Lista' and resource, and even specifies returned fields (sha, mensaje, autor, fecha). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_repositories and list_issues.

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 explicitly gives use cases: when the user asks 'what commits are there', wants to see history, or latest modifications. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but the guidance is clear and contextually relevant.

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