git_log

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It reveals ordering ('newest first') and ties to commit history, but does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation or describe any side effects, which is a minor gap for a git tool.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and a practical use case. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a simple read-only log tool with 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides purpose, ordering, and use-case context. It does not describe output format, but the schema and sibling context fill most gaps.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions for limit, range, and workspace. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states 'Recent commits, newest first' which identifies the resource (commits) and ordering, and adds the use case of matching commit-message conventions, distinguishing it from sibling git tools like git_diff or git_status. The verb is implied rather than explicit, but purpose is clear.

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?

Explicitly states 'Useful for matching the project's commit-message conventions before committing', giving a clear when-to-use scenario. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for a focused tool.

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