haops_git_commit_log

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

No annotations are provided. The description implies a read-only operation by returning commit history, but it does not explicitly state that the tool is non-destructive, nor does it mention authentication, rate limits, or pagination behavior. It adds value by listing returned fields but lacks comprehensive behavioral disclosure.

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 two sentences long, directly states the purpose, returned data, and a key feature (multi-repo support). Every word is necessary, and it is front-loaded with the main action.

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 tool with five parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and a notable differentiator (multi-repo). The schema handles parameter details. However, it does not mention that the tool is read-only or provide error scenarios, though these are less critical for a retrieval tool.

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 the schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds minimal supplementary meaning beyond summarizing the schema (e.g., 'Supports multi-repo projects via repositoryName'). It does not clarify parameter types, defaults, or constraints beyond what is in the schema.

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 tool retrieves recent commit history from a project's Git repository and lists the returned fields (SHA, author, date, message). It also mentions support for multi-repo projects via repositoryName, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like haops_git_commit_diff.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as haops_git_commit_diff or haops_git_list_files. The context of multi-repo support provides some guidance, but no when-not-to or explicit alternatives are given.

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