CommitLore

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

The description goes beyond annotations by disclosing experimental precision/recall metrics and warning that an empty 'matched' array does not guarantee avoidance. This adds valuable behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, which only indicate safety.

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 four sentences, each providing distinct value: the action, the return, the reliability, and a limitation. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and avoids redundancy, making it both concise and well-structured.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description explains what is returned (records with reasons) and its reliability. It covers when to use, what to expect, and limitations, making it complete for a guard tool. No critical information is missing.

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 both parameters (path and proposal) are fully documented. The description does not add new parameter-level semantics; it only restates the purpose of the proposal parameter, which is already covered in the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action: checking a proposal against Ruled-out records for a path before acting on it. It specifies the resource (Ruled-out records for a path) and the expected output (records with rejection reasons). This distinguishes it as a pre-action guard, even though it doesn't name sibling tools.

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 provides temporal context ('before acting on it') and mentions an optional proposal parameter for guard runs, implying two usage modes (context-only and guard). However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like commitlore_guard, so an agent must infer when this tool is the appropriate choice.

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

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

The annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds transparency about the output ('Returns every record whose alternative matches') and the important caveat that an empty result does not guarantee safety. It does not describe error behavior, but the main behavioral characteristics are disclosed.

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 three sentences, each conveying essential information: the action, the return behavior, and the experimental limitations. No filler or redundant phrasing is present.

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?

The description explains what the tool returns and includes a critical limitation about false negatives. There is no output schema, but the return shape is described well enough for basic use; error cases and exact record structure are not specified.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description does not add significant semantic detail beyond the schema. 'Path' and 'proposal' are both described in the schema, so the description mostly repeats rather than enriches parameter meaning.

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 states a specific action ('Check a proposal'), a specific resource ('Ruled-out records for a path'), and a clear purpose ('before acting on it'). It clearly distinguishes this tool's role from generic query or mutation tools.

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 provides clear timing guidance ('before acting on it') and warns that the tool is experimental and advisory, with precision/recall metrics. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools, but the usage context and limitations are sufficiently clear.

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

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that the tool persists a pending transaction, that the generated prompt carries only a window of the transcript, and that verification reads the full transcript while the agent should quote only what the prompt shows. This is genuinely useful behavioral nuance that prevents a common mistake.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds behavioral constraints that affect how the agent should interact with the result. Every sentence contributes value, though the prompt-window detail gains some length but remains justified because it prevents a false quote from the verification step.

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 tool with no output schema, the description provides essential return info (the nonce), the transaction phase, the prompt contract, and the verification-confirm behavior. Combined with the 100% schema coverage, an agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly and know what to do next.

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%, and the schema already documents both the transcript and unattended parameters. The description does not add per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it hits the baseline rather than exceeding it.

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 states a specific action — preparing a capture transaction — and details what that entails: computing binding conditions, generating a prompt contract, and persisting a prepared pending transaction. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like commitlore_stage_capture and commitlore_verify_capture by identifying the nonce return value as the requirement for those downstream steps.

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 clearly conveys that this tool is the first step in a multi-step transaction flow, since it persists a "prepared" phase and returns the nonce needed for verify and stage. It does not explicitly say when NOT to use it or name alternatives, so a small gap remains, but the context is enough for an agent to know its role relative to the siblings.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that records are 'active' and that it returns the same answer as a CLI command, implying a JSON response. This adds meaningful context beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence clarifies the CLI equivalence. No redundant phrasing or unnecessary elaboration.

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 2-parameter read-only query tool with no output schema, the description explains the content returned (active records of kinds), the scope via path, and the JSON format via CLI reference. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly, though it does not detail the exact response structure.

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%, with both parameters (kind and path) already fully described in the schema. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

States it retrieves active CommitLore records (constraints, ruled-out alternatives, warnings) for a path, and mentions it is equivalent to `commitlore <kind> --json`. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle guard, capture, identity, etc.

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 usage context (querying records for a path) but does not explicitly compare to alternative commitlore tools or state when not to use it. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternative selection guidance, relying on the purpose to convey when it should be invoked.

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

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

The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint: true and destructiveHint: false, and the description's 'Report' action aligns perfectly with these. It further discloses the exact content of the report, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's behavior or side effects.

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, well-structured sentence that lists all reported items without unnecessary words. It is highly concise and easy to parse.

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 that there are no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It fully informs the agent of what the tool reports, with no missing context needed to invoke it correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the description does not need to explain any. Since there are no params to clarify, the baseline score of 4 is appropriate.

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 with the specific verb 'Report' and lists the exact items reported (entrypoint, package root, version, index schema). It is distinct from the sibling tools, which focus on query, capture, and guard operations.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or conditions. It is a self-explanatory reporting tool, but the absence of any usage context leaves the agent without direction on when to invoke it.

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

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

Beyond the basic readOnly/destructive flags, the description discloses the exact state transition, the computed expires_at value, the eligibility effect on a hook, and the fact that bindings are server-owned. It explains what the operation does to internal state while not hiding the mutation. It lacks only error-handling or side-effect detail, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 two sentences long, leve with no fluff, and begins with the action and state transition, followed by the temporal stamp and the hook eligibility. Every clause carries meaningful information, and it is fully readable at a glance.

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?

Although the absence of an output schema means the description ideally could hint at what the tool returns or error conditions, it adequately explains the input, the state change, and the outcome (ready for the hook). Given the low complexity (single parameter) and full schema coverage, the core guidance is present. A minor gap remains in not saying whether the operation returns a status or a new nonce, but this is not blocking.

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 schema already documents the nonce property as a mandatory 32-character lowercase hex returned from prepare_capture, which covers a lot of the semantic ground. The description adds the key insight that only a nonce is accepted and that all other bindings are server-owned, reinforcing that the agent does not need to supply additional context and that the nonce references stored state.

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 a specific action (stage a verified capture transaction), identifies the exact staging state transition (verified to staged), and names the downstream effect (preparation for prepare-commit-msg). It is distinct from sibling tools like prepare_capture or verify_capture, as it describes the concrete phase in the pipeline.

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 provides strong implied usage guidance by saying it advances only a verified record to staged, so it naturally belongs after verification. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions, but the precondition is unmistakable: the record must already be verified. This yields clear context without explicit when-not wording.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by defining what 'stale' means (superseded, past Expires:, flagged for review), which goes beyond the annotation. No contradiction; it reinforces the read-only nature by focusing on listing.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core purpose and criteria are front-loaded, and the command equivalence is a concise note. Every sentence earns its place.

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 zero-parameter listing tool with read-only annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains what is returned (stale records) and the criteria. No output schema exists, but the tool's purpose is simple enough that return format is implied.

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 tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not need to explain parameters. It appropriately omits parameter details.

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 lists stale CommitLore records, with specific criteria (superseded, past Expires:, flagged for review). The verb 'list' and resource 'stale records' are clear. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like commitlore_query, but the specific criteria make it distinct.

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 for viewing stale records but provides no guidance on when to use it versus other tools or when not to use it. The mention of 'Same answer as commitlore stale --json' is a command equivalence, not an alternative selection. No exclusions or context are given.

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

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

Annotations already set readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it mechanically checks citations, discards fabricated quotes, and stores the verified result in a pending transaction. It does not contradict annotations, though it omits failure behavior.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every clause earns its place. The workflow context is succinctly conveyed without fluff.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description never states what the tool returns (e.g., success/failure, verified draft, or error codes). It also doesn't cover what happens when verification fails or if the nonce is invalid. For a verification step in a multi-tool pipeline, this is a notable gap.

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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter already documented (e.g., nonce 'returned by prepare_capture', transcript and diff 'same content hashed at prepare time'). The description reinforces the hashed-at-prepare constraint but adds little beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb (verify) and resource (capture draft) against the transcript and diff, and distinguishes itself from siblings like prepare_capture and stage_capture by its role in the pipeline. The mention of mechanical evidence checking and discarding fabricated quotes further clarifies its unique purpose.

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 workflow: it verifies against content 'hashed at prepare time' and stores results 'for stage to consume', indicating it sits between prepare and stage. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative tools, leaving some inference required.

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