list_branch_authors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains scope and parameter modes but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what the output looks like, or any ordering/dedup behavior. This is adequate but leaves room for more 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 well-organized with a brief intro, numbered modes, and a bulleted use-case list. Every sentence adds useful information; there is no filler 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?

With four parameters, two modes, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately explains parameter interplay and usage context. The main gap is the lack of detail about exact returned fields (e.g., names, emails), but this is not critical for tool selection/invocation.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful mode-based semantics beyond the schema: it clarifies which parameters are needed in each mode and elaborates that from_commit captures all commits after it up to dev_branch. This extra value justifies a 4.

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 action: '列出变更范围内所有提交的作者信息' (list author info of all commits in the change range). This clearly identifies the tool's resource and purpose, and distinguishes it from siblings get_changed_files and generate_code_review, which deal with files and reviews rather than authors.

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 clear usage context with two explicit modes (branch comparison and commit hash mode) and concrete use cases (confirming own Git username, seeing participants in this iteration). It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternatives, but the mode guidance is solid, so it earns a 4.

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