list_commits

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely fails it. 'List' implies a read operation, but the description says nothing about pagination behavior (despite page/per_page params), result ordering, rate limits, or required permissions for private projects.

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?

A single tightly-scoped sentence with no filler, and the resource and its scoping dimensions are front-loaded. Nothing here is redundant or padded.

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 7-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the one-line description leaves significant gaps: the return shape (is the history paged? sorted how?) and the safety/permission profile are undocumented. The schema covers most inputs, but the description does too little for a tool of this complexity.

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 71%, so most parameters (path, since, until, ref_name, project_id) are already documented in the schema, and page/per_page carry sensible defaults. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('commit history') plus its scoping axes (project, branch, file path), so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling get_commit, which is the natural confusion point for an agent choosing between listing history and fetching one commit.

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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and never mentions the alternative get_commit. The agent must infer that this is the multi-commit view versus the single-commit sibling purely from the tool name.

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