list_branch_commits

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'detailed information and filtering options' without explaining any behavioral specifics like pagination, ordering, default values for include_merge_commits, or return format. It does not even explicitly state that the operation is read-only beyond the verb 'List'. The description adds little value over the schema.

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 concise single sentence that front-loads the primary action. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly listing key filtering capabilities. It earns a 4 for being efficient and avoid unnecessary verbosity.

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 the tool has 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too brief to provide adequate context. It does not explain return value structure, pagination behavior, default limits (though defaults are in schema), or any special considerations like how merge commits are handled. The description leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the full behavior and output of the tool.

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 100% (all 10 parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides. It mentions 'filtering options' generically, which is already covered by the parameter descriptions for since, until, author, search, etc.

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's function: listing commits in a branch. It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('commits in a branch'), which distinguishes it from siblings like list_pr_commits (in a pull request) and list_branches (listing branches). However, the phrase 'detailed information and filtering options' is somewhat vague and does not explicitly distinguish from all siblings.

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 the tool is used when you need commits from a specific branch, providing clear context. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the resource and scope are explicit enough that an AI agent can infer when to invoke it. This meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' criterion.

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