Will this commit subject pass the repo's hooks?

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context about repo-specific enforcement and the shell-escaping advantage, but it does not go further into return behavior or failure semantics. With the annotations in place, this is adequate but not unusually rich.

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 sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and then adds a compact usage recommendation. Every clause earns its place, and there is no redundant restating of the tool name or input schema.

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?

Given a single string parameter, read-only and idempotent annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly. It explains the purpose, when to use it, and why it is preferable to the shell alternative.

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 0%, so the description must carry the meaning of the single parameter. It does so by clarifying that `subject` is a commit subject passed as a string argument, and by explaining that special characters are not mangled. For a one-parameter tool, this is sufficient compensation for the missing schema documentation.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Check a commit subject against Conventional Commits as this repo enforces it.' The 'before you commit' framing makes the tool's role clear, and it is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like rrt_validate_branch, which targets branches rather than commit subjects.

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 when to use it ('before you commit') and directly recommends it over the shell alternative `rrt-hooks commit-msg`, with a concrete reason: shell quoting can mangle special characters. This gives the agent actionable selection guidance.

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