git_commit

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false annotations: it is local, operates only on staged content, and has no remote interaction. It does not list failure conditions such as missing staged changes or Git user configuration, but the core behavioral boundaries are disclosed.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the exclusions are stated immediately afterward, making the tool behavior easy to parse quickly.

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 relatively simple commit tool, the description covers the essential preconditions and boundaries: staged changes, local-only, no remote interaction. It does not describe the return value or commit hash, but this is a minor gap for a straightforward operation.

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 50%: repo_path is described in the schema, but message has only length constraints and no semantic description. The tool description does not explain the message parameter or add meaning beyond its name, so the agent must infer that it is the commit message.

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 the verb ('Create'), the resource ('local Git commit'), and the precondition ('already staged changes'). It also distinguishes itself from staging and remote operations, so an agent can tell it apart from sibling tools like git_add without opening schemas.

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?

It explicitly says the tool works on already staged changes and does not stage files or contact a remote, which provides clear usage context. It does not explicitly name git_add as the staging alternative, so the agent must infer that relationship, but the guidance is still strong.

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