commit_and_push

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It outlines the three steps (stage, commit, push) but omits important behavioral details: what happens if there are no changes to commit, whether it pushes to a specific remote, error handling (e.g., merge conflicts), or side effects like overriding local commits. The description is adequate but lacks depth.

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, efficient sentence that conveys the core functionality without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and each word contributes meaning. Ideal conciseness for a straightforward tool.

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 straightforward nature of the tool and the complete parameter schema, the description provides the basic context. However, it lacks detail on return values (no output schema) and does not address edge cases or typical usage scenarios. It is minimally sufficient but not comprehensive.

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%, with both parameters ('files' and 'message') already well-described in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional semantic detail beyond paraphrasing the schema. Baseline is 3 due to high coverage, and no extra value is provided.

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 stages files, creates a commit, and pushes to the current branch. It uses specific verbs (Stage, create, push) and identifies the resource (git operations). It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like create_branch or create_issue, which serve different purposes.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., being in a git repository, having an upstream configured) or when not to use it (e.g., when needing to force push or handle conflicts). Sibling tools are listed but no comparative context is given.

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