bb_get_commits

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get commits' without revealing that the tool returns a paginated list, defaults to the main branch, supports filtering and output formats, or any other behavioral traits. The description is too sparse to inform the agent about side effects, response characteristics, or operational details.

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 sentence, 'Get commits for a repository branch,' which is extremely concise and front-loaded. There is no wasted wording or repetition of schema information, making it appropriately sized for a minimal-purpose statement.

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?

Given the tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is inadequate. It does not mention pagination behavior, default branch handling, response format options, or any other contextual details needed for correct invocation. The rich schema offsets some gaps but the description itself remains incomplete 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter (page, branch, filter, pagelen, repo_slug, workspace, output_format) having a clear description. The tool description itself adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get commits for a repository branch' clearly specifies the action (get), the resource (commits), and the scope (repository branch). This differentiates it from sibling tools like bb_get_pr_commits (PR-specific), bb_get_commit (single commit), and bb_get_file_history (file history). The purpose is unambiguous and effectively names the primary function.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it lists commit history on a branch, nor does it point to bb_get_pr_commits for pull request commits or bb_get_commit for a single commit. There is no exclusionary or contextual information to help the agent choose appropriately.

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