gitlab_get_commits

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

No annotations provided. Description only states 'read-only,' which hints at no side effects, but lacks details on pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or default behavior when ref is null. The full burden is on the description, which is insufficient for full transparency.

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?

Single sentence that is direct and efficient. No superfluous words. Every word adds value.

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 3 parameters and an output schema, the description is minimal. It does not mention ordering (e.g., most recent first), commit details returned, or how to distinguish from gitlab_get_mr_commits. Output schema exists, but behavioral context is lacking.

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 describes 3 parameters with 0% coverage (no descriptions). Description adds meaning by mentioning 'project branch/ref' for the 'ref' parameter, but does not explain 'project' (full path or ID?), that 'limit' controls maximum commits, or default behavior when ref is null. With no schema descriptions, description should compensate more.

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?

Description clearly states the tool lists recent commits for a project branch/ref and is read-only. Verb 'list' and resource 'commits' are specific, and the scope is defined. It distinguishes from sibling tools like gitlab_get_commit_diff or gitlab_get_mr_commits.

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?

Description implies when to use (to list recent commits) but provides no guidance on when not to use, e.g., when needing commit diffs or merge request commits. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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