svn_log

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, destructive, or requires authentication. The phrase 'return structured log entries' implies a read operation, but this is not explicit.

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 sentence, which is concise, but it lacks critical details about usage, parameters, and effects. It is too minimal to be fully useful.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It does not explain return values, error cases, or prerequisites (e.g., working copy requirement).

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 50%, with cwd and paths documented but limit and verbose lacking descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter details beyond what the schema provides, failing to compensate for the low coverage.

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 it runs 'svn log' and returns structured log entries, which is specific to the svn_log command. It distinguishes from sibling tools like svn_add, svn_commit, etc., all of which perform different operations.

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 on when to use svn_log versus other svn tools like svn_info or svn_status. The description does not mention circumstances or alternatives.

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