auto_git_commit

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

No annotations provided, but description discloses key behaviors: staging, AI-generated commit message, commit, optional push. Explains stage_all parameter behavior. Could mention what happens on failure or auth requirements, but still provides good transparency.

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: two sentences plus bullet-style parameter descriptions. Every sentence adds value, no repetition or fluff. Front-loads the main purpose.

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?

Tool has 3 parameters and output schema (exists but not described). Description covers core workflow and parameters. Missing details on output or error states, but output schema likely handles that. Reasonably complete for the tool's complexity.

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 0%, so description compensates by explaining each parameter: repo_path is absolute path, push boolean, stage_all boolean. Defaults are mentioned in schema and description echoes them. Adequate for understanding.

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?

Description clearly states what the tool does: automatically stage, generate a commit message using Antigravity, commit, and optionally push. Verb 'auto_git_commit' directly reflects action, and resource is git operations. Differentiates from siblings as no other tool handles git commits.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this to offload boring token-wasting git operations from the frontier model', providing clear when-to-use context. Does not mention when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the guidance is direct and helpful.

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