commits_mine

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It reveals that the tool queues proposals for `dim review` and never writes directly, disclosing the output behavior and safety profile. It also implies incremental scanning by default via the 'full=true' option, which is important behavioral context. It doesn't detail potential failure modes, but schema covers prerequisites like LLM availability.

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 short sentences, each conveying distinct information: purpose, behavioral implication, and usage guidance. It is front-loaded and free of redundant content, making it highly efficient.

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?

The tool is well-covered: purpose, usage, and key behavioral constraints are present. There is no output schema, but the description explains the queue-based output mechanism. The only gap is that it doesn't specify what happens to queued proposals or how to retrieve them, but the sibling tool `proposals_pending` likely covers that. Overall, adequately 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter's meaning. The description reinforces the `full` parameter's purpose when it mentions 'full=true to rescan all history,' adding usage context. It doesn't add syntactic detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 mines git commit history for memory-worthy candidates, which is a specific action on a specific resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by clarifying it queues proposals rather than writing directly. The reference to `dim mine` provides an additional clear context.

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 explicitly says 'Use after meaningful commits, or with full=true to rescan all history,' giving clear when-to-use guidance. It also states it never writes active memory directly, implying that memory_write should be used for that purpose, thus providing an implicit alternative. This is strong usage guidance.

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