build_commit_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations: no mention of whether it reads git history vs. current index, how 'hotspots' are computed, or whether the narrative is deterministic.

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?

A single unpunctuated fragment is not concise so much as under-specified; there is no front-loading of the core action and no structure to separate purpose from output. It under-delivers rather than being tight.

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?

With no output schema, the description partially compensates by naming the output contents (stats, hotspots, suggested type), which is genuinely useful. However, for a 4-parameter tool with no usage guidance and no behavioral detail, it remains thin overall.

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 75% (project, max_files, max_symbols_per_file documented; changed_files is self-evident as required). The description adds nothing about parameters, but the schema largely carries that burden, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 fragment 'Compact commit/review narrative with stats, hotspots, suggested type' conveys that a summarized commit/review artifact is produced, but it is a noun phrase with no verb and no explicit scope. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_project_summary, get_changed_symbols, or find_hotspots, which plausibly overlap.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this tool, what preconditions it needs (e.g., a git repo state or prior change detection), or which sibling to use instead. The agent must infer usage purely from the name.

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