gsd_commit

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states that it commits to git, a mutating action, but does not mention whether files are required, how staging works, whether history is rewritten, or any side effects. This lack of detail leaves the agent guessing about important operational behaviors.

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, concise sentence with no filler. It immediately states the tool's function, making it easy to scan. There is no unnecessary detail, and the structure is ideal for quick comprehension.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is too brief to be fully contextual. It does not explain what 'planning documents' refers to, what happens when 'files' is omitted, or expected output or failure modes. While the schema covers parameters, the overall usage context is incomplete, making this description insufficient for an agent to confidently use the tool without additional assumptions.

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%: both 'files' and 'message' are described. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the word 'planning documents', which slightly hints at which files to commit but does not clarify the optionality or behavior of the parameters. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already handles parameter semantics.

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 'Commit planning documents to git' clearly identifies the action (commit), the target (planning documents), and the destination (git). This verb+resource+destination structure distinguishes it from sibling tools like gsd_run or gsd_validate, and there is no ambiguity about the core operation.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or provide exclusions or alternative tool recommendations. A user must infer usage from the tool name and description without further context.

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