search_commits

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a key constraint (default branch only) and notes that the q parameter accepts commit-search qualifiers. However, it does not mention rate limits, authentication requirements, read-only nature, or result pagination behavior. It provides a docs link for more detail but leaves significant behavioral traits undisclosed.

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 and a link. It front-loads the primary purpose, provides a concrete example, and points to official docs for deeper detail. Every word earns its place; no fluff or redundancy.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description covers the core search behavior and q syntax but omits return format, pagination defaults, and rate-limit implications. It is adequate for a basic understanding but leaves gaps that an agent would need to infer or look up in the linked docs, making it only moderately complete.

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 60% (3 of 5 params described). The description adds value by giving an example for the q parameter and clarifying that it accepts GitHub commit-search qualifiers, which the schema's enum-like list partially covers. The remaining parameters (page, per_page, sort, order) are adequately described in the schema, with two having enums. The description's added example is helpful but does not fully compensate for the uncovered parameter meanings.

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 the tool searches commits on the default branch of repositories, using a specific verb (search) and resource (commits). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_commits (which lists commits in a repo) and get_commit (which fetches a single commit) by emphasizing the search capability and the default branch scope. The example query further clarifies its purpose.

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 implies usage through the GitHub commit-search qualifiers example, showing it is for search queries with qualifiers like repo: and author:. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_commits or search_code, nor does it provide exclusions. The usage context is only implied, not explicitly contrasted with siblings.

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