Закомітити

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals two non-obvious behaviors: automatic rejection of credential-like files and absence of push. This goes well beyond a generic 'commit' description, though it omits details about staging behavior and error handling.

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 terse sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and both behavioral caveats (credential filtering, no push) earn their place without repetition.

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 two-parameter commit tool, the description adequately covers purpose, repository scope, and key behavioral caveats. The main gap is the undocumented required message parameter and the absence of guidance on pre-commit checks such as git_status.

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 50%: only paths has a description ('Обмежити коміт цими шляхами'), while the required message parameter is undocumented. The tool description adds no meaning for either parameter, so an agent gets no help understanding required message content or default paths behavior beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Комітить') and resource ('зміни в D:/GLM-5.2'), and adds two differentiating constraints: credential-like files are rejected and push is not performed. This clearly distinguishes the tool from read-only siblings like git_status, even though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 use for creating a local commit in the specified repository and explicitly warns that push is a separate human decision ('Push не робить — це окреме рішення людини'). However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or suggest preconditions like checking git_status first.

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