commit_staged

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

The description discloses that the committer name is modified, which is a behavioral side effect. However, without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It could be more explicit about the exact impact (e.g., 'the commit author will be altered'), but the provided detail is adequate for a simple operation.

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?

Single sentence that is front-loaded and contains no wasted words. Every word earns its place, efficiently conveying the core behavior.

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 simple git commit tool with no output schema, the description covers the main action and a notable side effect. However, it omits details like success confirmation or error behavior. Given low complexity, it is nearly complete.

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 meaning beyond the schema. Both parameters (message and cwd) are already described in the schema, so the description adds no extra context.

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?

Clearly states the tool commits staged changes with a message, and specifies a unique behavioral tweak (appending '(aider)' to committer name). The verb and resource are explicit, and with no sibling tools, differentiation is not needed.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other git commands. Since there are no siblings, the guidance is less critical, but still absent; no prerequisites or limitations are mentioned.

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