git_commit_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It does mention two behavioral traits: atomicity and enforcement of session budget/confirmation checkpoints. However, the meaning of 'confirmation checkpoints' is vague—it does not explain that the 'confirmed' parameter must be set to true, nor does it describe side effects, failure modes, or authorization requirements. Some credit is given for partially disclosing behavior beyond the name.

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 sentence, concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the second part about session budget and confirmation checkpoints is cryptic and could be more clearly structured. It earns points for brevity but loses a little for including unclear jargon.

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 one required field, the description is incomplete. It does not mention the parameters, the confirmation flow, what the output contains, or any preconditions. Even though an output schema exists (which covers return values), the operational context is missing. The atomicity and budget enforcement are included but not elaborated, leaving the agent to guess at the actual workflow.

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 0% description coverage, and the description provides no explanation of any parameters. The phrase 'confirmation checkpoints' could relate to 'confirmed' but is too ambiguous to count as semantic clarification. None of the six parameters (files, branch, message, confirmed, repo_path, create_branch) are described, so the agent has no help understanding what each does.

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 with a specific verb and resource: 'Create an atomic git commit.' It distinguishes itself from the sibling tools (which are for scanning, memory, risk scoring, etc.) by naming the exact git operation. The mention of atomicity adds precision.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites. While the tool's name indicates it is for git commits, the description does not clarify the workflow (e.g., must have staged changes, should be used after write_fix_tool, or how the confirmation checkpoint works). The 'enforces session budget and confirmation checkpoints' hint is behavioral, not usage guidance.

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