list_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 of disclosing behavior. It only states 'List commits,' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not mention pagination, default per_page values, return format, or rate limits. The docs link is not a substitute for inline 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with a reference link. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler. Its brevity is a structural strength, even if it lacks detail.

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 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not describe expected response data, pagination behavior, or filtering options, and it does not differentiate from the many related sibling tools. The agent must rely on the external docs URL for critical context.

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 coverage is 67% (4 of 6 parameters have descriptions), leaving 'page' and 'per_page' undocumented. The description adds no parameter-level meaning and does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions or explain interactions between parameters like sha, path, and pagination.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'List commits in a GitHub repository.' This is unambiguous and distinct from single-commit or search-oriented tools, though it does not explicitly call out sibling tools or edge cases like filtering by branch or path.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_commit, search_commits, or list_branches. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or context, leaving the agent to infer usage only from the tool name and general phrasing.

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