draft_commit_message_local

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It labels the tool as 'cheap and fast' but provides no specifics on side effects, authorization needs, rate limits, or output format. The behavior of the local model is not detailed, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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, using a single sentence for purpose followed by a brief usage note and an Args section. It avoids redundancy, though the docstring format is slightly verbose for the minimal content. Overall, it is efficient.

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 simple tool with two parameters and an output schema (not provided here), the description covers the core usage but omits details about return values, potential errors, or size limits. Given the lack of annotations, more behavioral context would improve completeness.

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?

The description explains the 'diff' parameter as 'The output of git diff --staged or similar', adding meaning beyond the schema. However, the 'model' parameter is not described, and the schema has no descriptions (0% coverage). The description partially compensates but leaves one parameter undocumented.

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 drafts a conventional-style commit message from a diff using the local model. It specifies the verb 'draft', the resource 'commit message', the input 'diff', and the model type 'local'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like summarize_local or extract_local.

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 indicates when to use the tool ('good for routine commits') and when not ('where the cloud model's analysis isn't needed'). It implies an alternative (cloud model) but does not name a specific sibling tool. The guidance is clear and helpful.

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