commitlore_before_change

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

Beyond the read-only annotations, it discloses that the guard is experimental, gives precision/recall numbers, explains that an empty match list means nothing checked rather than no match, and warns that empty results do not guarantee safety. This is significant extra behavioral context.

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 dense and front-loaded with the core purpose, then return keys, then usage modes, then the guard caveat. It is longer than average but every clause carries necessary information, so it earns its length.

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?

It names all returned keys and explains the guard-related result semantics, which is important because there is no output schema. It does not detail the internal structure of `active_decisions` or `verification_gaps`, but the names and context make them understandable enough for correct invocation.

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 adds behavioral meaning to `proposal` by explaining how its presence changes the guard run and the returned fields. It also clarifies that `path` is repository-relative, reinforcing the schema without repeating it verbatim.

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 returns recorded context for a path before editing, including active decisions, verification gaps, and ruled-out alternatives. It distinguishes its scope ('before editing') and guard behavior from the sibling set, though it does not explicitly name an alternative tool to contrast with.

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?

It gives explicit mode guidance: pass `path` alone for context, and pass `proposal` to also run the guard. It explains the consequences of omitting `proposal` (guard_confidence 'not-run', possible_revival_matches empty). It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over sibling tools like commitlore_guard, but the context is clear.

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