git_suggest_type

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 it returns a suggested type and reasoning, and 'analyze' implies read-only behavior. However, it doesn't explicitly state that it makes no modifications, nor does it mention any prerequisites like an initialized repository or existing staged changes. This leaves some behavioral traits undisclosed.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the return value. Every word is useful, with no redundancy or irrelevant detail.

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 simple with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description covers the main purpose and return value. It could mention that staged changes must exist or that the tool works only in a git repository, but these are minor gaps given the low complexity.

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 the single optional parameter repo_path, so the description doesn't need to add param details. The baseline of 3 applies because the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, but it also doesn't need to.

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's function: analyzing staged git changes and suggesting a commit type. The verb 'suggest' and resource 'staged git changes' are specific, and it distinguishes itself from siblings (format, validate, commit) by focusing on type suggestion.

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: use when you have staged changes and need a commit type suggestion. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is distinct from sibling tools, and the usage scenario is obvious.

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