git_format_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It explicitly states the tool 'returns a properly formatted message,' which implies a pure, side-effect-free operation and no repository mutation. This is adequate for a formatter, though it does not explicitly declare read-only status or error behavior.

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 single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the core purpose and output without fluff. Every word earns its place, and there is no unnecessary repetition of schema details.

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 simple pure formatting function, the description covers input ('commit parameters') and output ('properly formatted message with emoji'). Since there is no output schema, this return-value description is sufficient. It omits deep format details, but schema and the convention named provide enough context.

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 schema has 100% coverage for all parameters, so the schema already documents meaning. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the generic phrase 'commit parameters,' making the baseline 3 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 'Format a commit message according to the git-emoji-commit convention' with a specific verb and resource, and clarifies it 'returns a properly formatted message with emoji.' This directly distinguishes it from sibling tools like git_validate_message, git_suggest_type, and git_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 implies usage as a formatter for commit messages but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not name siblings or provide exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the role from the tool name and context.

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