git_log

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a small amount of behavioral context ("recent" and "bounded"), but says nothing about ordering, how far back history goes, or whether it follows renames/merges.

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 short sentence with the scope constraint front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity tips into under-specification rather than pure economy.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described. However, with two parameters undocumented at 0% schema coverage, no usage guidance, and no differentiation from five sibling git tools, the definition is not complete enough for reliable selection and invocation.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden for the path and limit parameters, and it explains neither. "Bounded" hints at the limit parameter's effect, and "commit history" weakly implies path is a repository path, but the required path parameter's expected form (repo root? file? subdirectory?) is undefined.

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 gives a clear verb and resource ("Return ... commit history") with a scope qualifier ("bounded recent"), so an agent knows it is a history-listing read. It offers no differentiation from siblings like git_show, git_status, or git_diff, which an agent must infer on its own.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no naming of alternatives such as git_show (single commit) or git_diff. The agent is left to guess which git-family sibling applies to a given request.

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