commitlore_before_change

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.