ai.gen_commit_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It clearly states that the tool consumes a pull request's commits and changed files to generate a message, which implies a read-only analysis and no side effects. However, it does not explicitly mention permissions, rate limits, or that no modifications are made to the PR, leaving some behavioral uncertainty.

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 entire description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It states the action and the source data efficiently.

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 simplicity—3 self-explanatory parameters and an output schema—the description covers the core functionality. It mentions the input (PR commits and changed files) and the output type (conventional commit message). It could benefit from a note on when to use it or prerequisites, but these are already scored in other dimensions.

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 input schema provides only parameter names with zero descriptions. The description connects the parameters to 'a pull request,' implying that owner, repo, and pull_number identify the target PR. This adds some semantic context, but it doesn't explain each parameter's format or constraints beyond what their names suggest.

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 the specific verb 'Generate' and clearly identifies the resource ('a conventional commit message') and the source ('a pull request's commits and changed files'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ai.summarize_pr and ai.review_pr, which have different outputs.

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 intended use case—when a commit message is needed from a PR—but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like ai.summarize_pr or provide when-not-to-use guidance. The niche is clear, but no explicit usage boundaries are given.

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