Commit code projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation profile is known. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: concurrency, throttling via self.threads (20% CPU/RAM cap), and scale to thousands of repositories. It omits failure/partial-commit semantics, whether changes are pushed, and what happens to unstaged files.

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?

Short and front-loaded: the action leads, then the use-case framing, then the concurrency/scale constraint. The quoted colloquial restatement is slightly redundant padding but does aid recognition of the workflow.

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 mutating, multi-repository tool with no output schema and 0% parameter documentation, the description gives useful operational context (throttling, scale) but leaves key gaps: no return/result information, no error or partial-failure behavior, and no clarification of the required message parameter.

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% with 3 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. 'pre-commit' hints at run_precommit and 'across projects' hints at the project_dirs scope, but the required `message` parameter is never mentioned, and there is no detail on what project_dirs accepts (paths vs names) or the default-null meaning.

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?

States a precise compound verb sequence (stage + pre-commit + commit) and the resource ('feature code across projects'), which an agent can act on directly. It distinguishes itself from the singular siblings (commit_code_project, commit_project) via the 'concurrently ... across projects' framing, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Labels itself as 'the "add all our code, pre-commit, then commit" release-prep step', which implies when it is used. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this over commit_projects, commit_code_project, or the git-level rm_git_commit / rm_git_add tools, and no stated prerequisites (clean tree, branch state).

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