Report a git event

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

Annotations declare it non-read-only and non-idempotent; the description supplies the missing why — it 'feeds the Git Master chain', so consecutive calls accumulate state, which explains the non-idempotent hint. It also discloses that force_push breaks the streak, implying order sensitivity. It stops short of saying what the response shape or failure mode looks like, but with annotations present the bar is lower.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the reward mechanic and the sibling-overlap note; each sentence carries distinct information. The gamification aside is framed as motivation for the chain semantics rather than pure filler, though it is the softest part of the description.

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 three-parameter, fire-and-forget hook reporter with full schema coverage and no output schema, this covers trigger, effect, and sibling overlap adequately. The only gap is that nothing describes what the caller gets back when reporting (the schema hints detail is 'only echoed back'), which would be trivial to add.

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 only indirect meaning — the '20 commits in a row without a successful force-push' streak implies how commit and force_push differ in effect — but it does not reinforce the action enum, the ok toggle, or the detail field in any explicit way. Reasonable, but the schema is doing essentially all of the work.

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 first clause states a concrete verb and resource — 'tell the companion a commit landed (or that history was rewritten)' — which is specific enough to know exactly what event is being reported. The parenthetical extends the scope to rewritten history, matching the rebase/force_push enum values. It is clearly distinct from generic siblings like femboy_report_command, and the description explicitly explains the boundary between the two.

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?

It names the trigger ('the git hook'), the conditions ('a commit landed', 'history was rewritten'), and explicitly addresses the most likely confusion: that a plain femboy_report_command carrying a git command line is classified the same way, so wiring both is harmless. That is a direct when/when-not routing statement against a sibling, not merely implied usage.

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