commitlore_guard

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.