git_commit_tool

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

The description implies a write operation (committing) but does not disclose behavioral details like requiring staged changes, potential failure modes (e.g., no changes staged, dirty index), or that it can be undone with git reset. No annotations are present to compensate.

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 single sentence, front-loading the action 'Records staged changes'. Every word is necessary with no redundancy or filler.

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 standard git commit operation, the description paired with the input schema and output schema (present) is adequate to understand the basic functionality. However, it lacks context about typical workflow steps (e.g., staging first) and error conditions.

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%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('Path to the Git repository' and 'The commit message'). The tool description does not add additional semantic value beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses the specific phrase 'Records staged changes' which clearly identifies the action as committing changes to a repository. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like git_add_tool (staging) and git_diff_tool (viewing differences).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites such as staging changes first (sibling git_add_tool) or that it should be used after reviewing changes with git_diff_staged_tool.

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