Get today's commits

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

The description ('Returns') aligns with the readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false annotations, with no contradiction. It does not add extra behavioral details beyond the annotations, but the annotations already cover safety, so the description is adequate.

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 redundant words. It delivers all necessary information efficiently, with the key details front-loaded.

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?

Without an output schema, the description provides some output context ('with message and metadata') to hint at the return structure. This is sufficient for a simple tool, though a bit more detail could improve completeness.

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?

The schema description for repo_path ('Filter by repository path. Omit for all repos.') fully explains the parameter, achieving 100% coverage. The main description does not add further parameter context, so it stays at the baseline for schema-covered parameters.

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 the action ('Returns'), the resource ('commits'), and the scope ('from today', grouped by ticket ID). None of the sibling tools (e.g., get_eod_summary, get_ticket_context) overlap with commit retrieval, so it is easily distinguished.

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 what the tool does but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide usage conditions. Since siblings are distinct, the lack of explicit guidance is acceptable, but it does not meet the 'explicit when/when-not' standard.

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