commit_and_push

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behaviors like whether it stages changes, handles conflicts, or requires a clean working directory. It only says 'commit and push', omitting critical side effects.

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?

Extremely concise, but at the expense of necessary detail. Every word matters, but the description is too sparse to be helpful.

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 the number of sibling git tools and the presence of an output schema, the description fails to provide enough context. It does not mention what happens after the operation, such as return values or error conditions.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters. 'repo_path' and 'message' are ambiguous without context; the description should clarify what these represent (e.g., local git repository path, commit message).

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 action: commit changes and push to origin. It distinguishes from siblings like clone_repo or create_branch, but could be more specific about what 'changes' means (e.g., all uncommitted changes or staged only).

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like apply_patch or check_for_conflicts. The description does not set expectations about workflow prerequisites or conditions.

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