generate_commit_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It mentions reading staged diffs and file metadata and producing a suggestion, but is vague about the exact return value ('produces a suggestion' vs 'use the returned analysis'), and does not address failure modes (e.g., no staged changes) or side effects.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the primary action. The second sentence adds relevant detail, though it could be slightly tighter (e.g., merging the LLM instruction).

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 core functionality and mentions the commit message format, but lacks guidance on preconditions (e.g., must have staged changes) and does not explicitly differentiate from similar tools. An output schema exists, so return value details are not needed.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions; it only notes that staged diffs and metadata are read, which is already implied by the tool's purpose.

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 tool's purpose: it 'analyses staged changes and produces a conventional commit message suggestion.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like git_commit_tool (which commits) and git_diff_staged_tool (which shows diffs).

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 implies usage for generating a commit message suggestion before committing, but does not explicitly contrast with siblings or state when not to use it. However, the context of staged changes makes it reasonably clear.

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