dev_precommit

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only' and 'Never commits, stages, or modifies anything.' This fully discloses the tool's side-effect-free nature, which is the critical behavioral trait. The description goes beyond a simple purpose statement by reassuring the agent of safety.

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 two concise sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded. The first sentence states what it does, the second reinforces the read-only guarantee. No fluff or redundant details; every word adds value.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, scope, and behavioral safeguards. An output schema exists, so return values are presumed documented elsewhere. The only notable gap is the undocumented 'workspace' parameter, which prevents the description from being fully complete for a drop-in usage understanding.

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 schema has one parameter ('workspace') with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention it at all. This leaves the agent to infer that 'workspace' refers to a path, but there is no explicit guidance, default behavior, or allowed values. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'Read-only commit-readiness summary' and details the specific checks (Git status, project health, secrets). It also explicitly states what it never does, which distinguishes it from mutation tools. The purpose is unambiguous and distinct from sibling dev_* tools.

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?

Usage context is implied by the name and description: it is for checking commit readiness, presumably before committing. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., dev_health, dev_check) or provide any exclusion criteria. It offers clear context but no explicit comparisons.

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