MCP Practice

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Generate' but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation (e.g., analyzing Git history) or a write operation (e.g., creating a commit file). It also omits details like whether it requires Git to be initialized, handles errors, or has side effects, which are critical for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 with no wasted words, making it appropriately concise. However, it could be more front-loaded with critical details (e.g., behavioral traits) given the lack of annotations, but as-is, it's structurally sound.

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 complexity of generating commit messages (which may involve Git operations, formatting rules, or user input), the description is incomplete. With no annotations, no output schema, and minimal behavioral context, it fails to provide enough information for an agent to use the tool confidently, especially for a task that could have varied implementations.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'workingDirectory' clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain why this path is needed or how it influences the generation). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 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 'Generate standardized commit message' states a clear verb ('Generate') and resource ('standardized commit message'), providing a basic understanding of the tool's function. However, it lacks specificity about what 'standardized' means (e.g., conventional commits, specific formatting rules) and doesn't distinguish from any siblings (though none exist), making it somewhat vague.

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 or any context for its application. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., Git repository status), exclusions, or typical scenarios, leaving the agent with no usage direction beyond the basic purpose.

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