git_commit

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It does disclose important behaviors: it validates staged changes, formats the message, and creates the commit. However, it omits other relevant traits such as failure modes, commit hooks, or repository configuration needs, so it provides only partial transparency.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the main action. It avoids unnecessary detail and every sentence adds value, even though 'creates the commit' appears twice.

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 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and a key prerequisite, but does not explain return values or broader context like repo_path usage. Still, the schema comprehensively documents parameters, so the description is reasonably 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 baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it does not elaborate on how parameters like 'scope' or 'breaking' are used.

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 specific action: 'Create a git commit following the emoji-commit convention.' It also names the resource (git commit) and differentiates from sibling tools that only format/validate/suggest messages by emphasizing the creation step: 'creates the commit.'

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 by noting the prerequisite of staged changes ('Validates staged changes exist') and the workflow (format then create). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like git_format_message 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.