foundation_commit

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

No annotation hints are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses atomicity and the boundary (never modifies application source), but doesn't explain what 'commit to Foundation artifacts' actually entails, side effects, or failure modes. Minimal but not misleading.

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, front-loaded with the core action, and no wasted words. The key constraint 'Never modifies application source' is prominent.

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?

With 8 parameters, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is too thin. It doesn't mention required parameters, return values, or the meaning of the complex capability/evidence fields, leaving the agent under-informed for a multi-parameter tool.

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 only 13%, and the description adds no parameter-level detail. It doesn't clarify what project_root, analysis_id, evidence_checks, or capability lists mean semantically, leaving the agent with sparse guidance.

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 ('commit') and resource ('Foundation artifacts') with a clear condition ('validated, user-confirmed analysis proposal'). It clearly distinguishes this commit tool from the analysis/scan/verify sibling 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 it should be used only after validation and user confirmation, and explicitly states it never modifies application source. It could name alternative tools more explicitly, but the contextual guidance is sufficient.

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