Summarize Recent Commits

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the grouping behavior and the benefit of avoiding raw logs, but it does not disclose error handling, rate limits, output format specifics, or what happens when there are no commits. For a read-only fetch operation, this is thin coverage; a 2 reflects the missing behavioral detail beyond the basic action.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('Fetches commits from the last N days') and adds the grouping purpose efficiently. No filler or redundancy; every word earns its place.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is adequate but incomplete. It explains the purpose and grouping but does not describe the output structure (e.g., what the grouped result looks like), pagination, or edge cases. Given the moderate complexity, this is a 3—functionally usable but with gaps an agent might need to infer.

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 all parameters are already documented (days, repo, owner). The description mentions 'last N days' which aligns with the 'days' parameter but does not add any syntax or additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct given high schema 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?

States a clear verb ('Fetches commits') and resource (commits from a repo), and adds the grouping purpose. It distinguishes itself from the siblings implicitly—get_repo_health, find_good_first_issues, ask_repo—by focusing on commit summarization, but does not explicitly name them or contrast. A 4 is appropriate for a clear purpose without explicit sibling differentiation.

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 gives context ('so an agent can describe what changed without reading raw commit logs'), implying when it's useful, but it does not specify when to prefer this over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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