CommitLore

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.

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 reveals substantial behavior: it persists a phase:'prepared' pending transaction, computes binding conditions, returns only the end of the transcript in the prompt, notes that verification still reads the whole transcript, and refuses to bind when the repository assertion fails. None of this contradicts the annotations, and the readOnlyHint=false is consistent with the described persistence.

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 but every sentence earns its place: purpose and output are front-loaded, followed by critical quoting guidance and binding behavior. There is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 complex tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential return values (`nonce`, `repository`, `transcript_window`), the persistence side effect, the transcript quoting rule, and the refusal behavior. It does not enumerate the complete shape of the returned prompt contract or all possible error cases, but it provides enough context to call the tool effectively.

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 explains each parameter meaningfully, especially `repository` and `unattended`. The description adds workflow context around the transcript and repository assertion, but it does not add substantial parameter-level semantics beyond the schema, so the 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource: 'Prepare a capture transaction' and details the concrete outputs (binding conditions, prompt contract, pending transaction, nonce). It also distinguishes this step from the sibling tools by explicitly relating the nonce to 'verify and stage', so an agent can tell it apart from commitlore_stage_capture and commitlore_verify_capture.

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 gives clear workflow context: this prepares the transaction and returns the nonce needed for later verify and stage steps. It also includes a conditional usage rule for passing `repository` when working from a linked worktree or another clone. It does not explicitly enumerate when not to use the tool versus each sibling, but the phase workflow is clear enough.

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?

The description discloses key behaviors beyond the annotations: it advances the record from verified to staged, sets expires_at to staged_at + 5 minutes, and makes it eligible for the prepare-commit-msg hook. It also explains that bindings are server-owned and computed from stored state, and that receipt verification is enforced. This is rich context that annotations (only readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, destructiveHint as false) do not provide, so it earns a high score.

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 concise—two sentences—but packs critical information: the action, the state transition, the timing, the eligibility, and the parameter guidance. Every sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 the tool's moderate complexity, the description covers all essential aspects: the state transition, the time constraint, the eligibility for the hook, and the parameter handling. There is no output schema, so the description doesn't need to explain return values, and the parameter semantics are already covered in the schema. The only minor gap is not explicitly stating what the response or result looks like, but that is not critical 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 description coverage is 100%, so the description adds minimal extra meaning beyond what the schema already explains. The description reinforces the receipt's requirement and its origin, but since the schema already provides detailed descriptions, the 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 purpose: to stage a verified capture transaction by advancing a pending record from verified to staged, and it explicitly mentions the stamping of expires_at. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like verify_capture and prepare_capture by describing the specific state transition.

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 indicates when to use the tool ('after a verification has been issued') and explains when to omit the receipt (for older builds). However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or mention alternative tools by name, so it's not a perfect 5.

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?

The description goes beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) by disclosing that it stores the verified result in a pending transaction and that evidence citations are mechanically checked, with fabricated quotes discarded. This adds meaningful behavioral context about the mutation and verification logic.

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?

Three sentences with no redundancy. The purpose is front-loaded, and each sentence delivers distinct information: the core verification action, the citation-checking behavior, and the storage outcome.

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 does not specify the return value or what happens if verification fails, which is important given there is no output schema. It mentions the workflow (prepare, stage) but leaves response format and error handling unspecified.

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?

While the schema already covers 100% of parameters, the description adds extra nuance: it explains the diff parameter can be omitted for the server to read the staged diff itself, and it clarifies the draft format (JSON object with a 'records' array, bare array accepted). This supplements the schema descriptions meaningfully.

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 verb ('verify') and resource ('capture draft'), and clarifies the context by referencing 'hashed at prepare time' and 'for stage to consume'. This makes the tool's role in the workflow unambiguous and distinguishes it from the sibling prepare and stage 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 implies usage in the prepare→verify→stage workflow but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. There is no exclusions or alternative routing, so the guidance is only implicit.

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