Version-control history

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already declares safety, so the description adds value with the PORTAL_VC_DIR prerequisite and the fact that a returned hash can be used with restore_resource. It does not describe ordering, error behavior, or concurrency, but the annotation lowers the burden and the added requirement is useful context.

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 sentences carry all essential information: what the tool does, optional scoping, integration with restore_resource, and a required environment variable. The most important verb is front-loaded, and there is no filler.

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 read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scoping, a key output usage (hash for restore), and a prerequisite. It leaves ordering and pagination behavior implicit, but the schema documents the limit parameter and the readOnlyHint covers the safety profile.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of the parameters, so the description is not required to explain them. It adds minimal semantic value by saying commits can be "optionally scoped to one record," which loosely maps to id and resource, but this is already implied by the schema descriptions.

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 verb and resource: "List recent commits", with an optional scope to one record. It also distinguishes from sibling version-control tools like vc_status and vc_diff by focusing on commit history and explicitly linking to restore_resource via the returned hash.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool, namely to view recent commit history and to obtain a hash for revert via restore_resource. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like vc_status or vc_diff, leaving the comparison to the agent to infer.

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