git_auto_commit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses safety-relevant behaviors: only stages tracked files, excludes sensitive patterns, never force-pushes, and does not modify main/master. This is good, but it omits details like conflict handling or commit failure 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 extremely concise: two sentences that immediately state the action and critical constraints. Every sentence adds value; no fluff.

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 description covers the main operation and key constraints. Missing details about the commit message default (generic message) and return value are minor, especially with a schema that describes parameters. Overall adequate for this simple tool.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions. The tool description adds a safety note about untracked files but does not significantly supplement the schema. Baseline 3 is 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 core action: 'Stage tracked file changes and create a git commit.' It also specifies what the tool does NOT do (no untracked files, no sensitive files, no force-push), distinguishing it from siblings like git_create_pr or git_status_check.

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 lists constraints (e.g., only tracked files, no .env) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings. There is no direct guidance for selection among related git tools.

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