Attach Commit to Recent Decisions

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

The description discloses that it attaches commit_hash and diff_stat to decisions recorded in the last 30 minutes without an existing commit. Annotations include idempotentHint, and the description aligns with that. It doesn't detail error conditions but is transparent about its internal nature.

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 with three clear sentences, front-loading the purpose and restriction. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 tool is internal and has no output schema, the description sufficiently explains its effect and constraints (30-minute window, idempotency). It could mention what happens if workflow_id is invalid, but overall is complete for its context.

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 only 33% (diff_stat has a description). The tool description mentions attaching commit_hash and diff_stat but doesn't explain workflow_id. The schema provides types and required status, so the baseline is adequate but the description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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: to link recent decisions to a commit, called by a post-commit git hook. The verb 'attach' and resource 'commit' are specific, and it differentiates itself from sibling tools like cph_decision_record.

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 explicitly instructs not to call manually and states the hook calls it automatically after every commit. This provides clear when-not-to-use guidance, though alternative manual methods are not mentioned.

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