list_commits

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

Although readOnlyHint already covers safety, the description adds useful error behavior: missing resources, invalid identifiers, insufficient permission, and rate limits are returned as errors. Restating read-only is redundant, but the error disclosure goes beyond the annotation.

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 compact and front-loads purpose and selection guidance. The final sentence is somewhat boilerplate and the group_id mention adds noise, but overall the length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 a rich 100%-covered schema and readOnlyHint annotation, the description provides sufficient selection and error context. Minor gaps remain: no explicit return shape and the inaccurate group_id reference keep it from being fully 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter. The description mostly restates the project_id guidance and adds a generic directive about pagination, but it also references `group_id`, which is not present in the schema; this is potentially misleading rather than additive.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List repository commits') and directly distinguishes the collection-style tool from the matching single-resource get tool. The phrase 'with filtering options' also situates it as a queryable list operation.

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 says to use the tool for a collection of resources and to choose the corresponding get tool when a single resource is already known. This gives an agent a clear selection rule relative to siblings like get_commit.

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