git_commit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one genuinely useful trait — that it stages ALL changes rather than a selected subset, which affects what lands in the commit — but says nothing about permissions/identity requirements, what happens when there is nothing to commit, or whether the operation is reversible.

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?

A single ten-word sentence with the action and its scope front-loaded and no filler. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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 mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, no output schema, and two undocumented parameters, the description is too thin. An agent still cannot tell what a successful call returns, what it changes in the index versus history, or how failures are surfaced.

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%, so the description must compensate for both parameters and largely does not. 'message' is reasonably guessable from the commit concept, but 'dir' is ambiguous — the phrase 'in a local repo' hints it is a repo path, yet whether it is an existing clone, an absolute path, or a working directory is never stated.

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 states a specific compound verb (stage and commit) against a specific resource (a local repo), which is enough to distinguish it from git_push, git_branch, or git_clone. It stops short of naming a sibling or spelling out the division of labor, but the action is unambiguous.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The word 'local' implicitly signals that this does not push to a remote, but the agent must infer that and infer that it applies to an already-cloned working tree rather than an arbitrary path.

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