git_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description goes well beyond that by detailing behavioral nuances: it returns bounded newest-first results, includes limited/hasMore, exposes shallow-repository state, and provides historyComplete so agents don't mistake truncated or shallow views for complete evidence. It also explicitly states it never performs mutation actions. This is rich, additive behavioral disclosure that significantly aids correct agent reasoning.

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 that are dense with information yet free of filler. It front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence, then packs behavioral and scoping details into the second. Every clause adds value, with no wasted words.

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 that the tool has an output schema (implied by context signals) and a single documented parameter, the description covers all critical aspects: the scope, the return semantics (hashes, subjects, timestamps, limited/hasMore, shallow state, historyComplete), the exclusion rule, and the read-only guarantee. An agent would have everything needed to call and interpret the tool correctly without missing crucial information.

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 input schema fully documents the single optional 'limit' parameter with its default and maximum, achieving 100% schema coverage. The description does not add any additional meaning or nuance about the parameter itself; it focuses on the return format and behavior. Since the schema already does the heavy lifting, a 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 states a specific verb ('Read'), resource ('commit history'), and scope ('scoped to the active vault path only'). It also adds the exclusion of commits touching files outside the vault, which clearly delineates what the tool provides. This is a crisp purpose statement that distinguishes it from other Git-related tools like git_snapshot or git_status without naming them, but the specificity is sufficient.

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 clear context for when this tool is appropriate: only vault-scoped history, and explicitly states what it does NOT do ('never initializes, fetches, pulls, commits, or pushes'), which helps an agent avoid misuse. However, it does not name sibling alternatives or provide explicit 'use X instead' conditions, which would make the routing guidance even stronger.

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