commit_pr

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool modifies the repository state (commits, pushes, cleans up plan files) and depends on GitHub MCP being available. However, it doesn't disclose side effects like what happens to plan files specifically, whether the push is force or normal, or what happens if GitHub MCP is unavailable. The multi-step destructive behavior is partially disclosed but not fully.

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 compact two-sentence block that covers purpose, scope, dependencies, and usage preference. It's front-loaded with the primary action and includes the critical 'ALWAYS use this' guidance. Slightly verbose in listing every step, but each is relevant for setting expectations of a multi-step 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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is quite complete. It lists the full workflow steps, mentions dependency on GitHub MCP, and provides a usage directive. It could note failure modes (e.g., what happens if no changes to commit) but given the simplicity of the interface, this is reasonably complete.

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 tool has 0 parameters, so there's nothing to document. With no parameters and 100% schema coverage (trivially true with zero params), the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description compensates by explaining what the tool does internally, which gives the agent context on what to expect.

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 what the tool does: executes a complete commit and PR workflow including detecting project type, generating conventional commit messages, cleaning up plan files, committing, pushing, and creating a PR. It uses a specific verb ('Execute') with a clear resource (commit and PR workflow). It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings but the workflow is specific enough.

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 excellent usage guidance: 'ALWAYS use this instead of manual git commands to ensure team standards.' This is an explicit directive on when to use this tool versus the alternative (manual git commands), making it clear this is the preferred path for commits and PRs. This is strong guidance for an agent.

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