commit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool exports a JSON backup and returns the output path, schema version, and object counts. However, it omits behavioral details like the secret-scan refusal (only hinted in the force parameter) and file overwrite behavior. This is a moderate disclosure but leaves gaps.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by use cases and return value summary. Every sentence adds meaningful information without wasted words.

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 tool with 17 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the high-level purpose and return values but omits the 'bundle' commit_format entirely and does not mention the secret-scan safety mechanism. This leaves the description incomplete for a tool of this complexity, though the schema fills many 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some context around commit_format by explaining the default and backup option, but it does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions. No gaps to compensate for, but also no extra value.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Snapshot the current memory graph to a portable file (waggle commit).' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling export tools by emphasizing a portable backup/archive focus rather than visualization or Markdown export. The mention of 'waggle commit' reinforces the tool's identity.

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?

It provides clear use cases: 'migration, restore drills, or offline archive.' It also explains when to use commit_format='abhi' vs 'backup'. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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