commitlore_query

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.