Git Finalize

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

The description is rich in behavioral disclosure beyond annotations: it explains the merge of selected/expected paths, the blocking behavior for missing/extra paths, content-bound security receipt creation, sensitive-path blocking, rejection of mismatched workspace ids/generations, and the explicit statement that build/tests/validation are not rerun. Annotation openWorldHint=true is consistent with the description's scope-expanding merge behavior. This fully compensates for the sparse annotations.

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 dense run-on paragraph covering ~10 distinct behaviors with colons chaining multiple clauses. While information-dense and largely front-loaded with the primary purpose, the lack of sentence breaks or structural separation reduces scannability. It is arguably over-specified for a description, though each clause does add genuine behavioral information rather than padding.

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 complex tool with 10 parameters, an output schema, and 100% schema coverage, the description comprehensively covers the full behavioral surface: path merging/eligibility, exclusion rules, blocking conditions, security receipt validation, push modes, workspace binding, and explicit non-re-run operations. With an output schema present and rich schema descriptions, the description need not enumerate return values. The state-machine-like flow (scan, verify, receipt, commit, re-verify, push) is fully disclosed without excess.

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 parameters are already well-documented in the schema. The description adds value by clarifying the interaction semantics between selected_paths and expected_paths (merge behavior), the include_untracked legacy flag's reduced role, and the workspace binding/defaults for workspace_id and workspace_generation. The description complements rather than merely repeats the schema. Slight overlap remains since schema already documents much of this, so a strong 4 rather than 5.

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 specifies a clear verb+resource ('finalize Git changes') with substantial detail about the operation: merging paths, blocking missing/extra paths, creating a security receipt, verifying committed paths, and optionally pushing. It distinguishes from siblings by covering the full finalize workflow (combining commit+push with safety checks) rather than just committing or pushing alone. However, the purpose is stated as one long run-on sentence listing many sub-steps, making it somewhat harder to parse as a single tool intent.

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 the tool is the integrated finalize step (commit + optional push with security checks), distinguishing it operationally from sibling tools like git_commit and git_push_only. It notes explicitly what is NOT rerun (build, tests, browser validation, Acceptance, formal certification), giving exclusion guidance. However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools for when-to-use vs when-not-to-use the standalone tools.

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