generate_commit_message

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 effectively describes key traits: it analyzes staged and modified files, uses a template-based heuristic, and returns a suggested message (not performing the commit). It also details the two style options and their outputs. While it doesn't cover error handling or performance, it provides substantial behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence. Each subsequent section (note, usage, styles, args, returns) adds value without redundancy. There is no wasted text, and the structure is logical 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 the tool's moderate complexity, no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but with an output schema, the description is highly complete. It covers purpose, usage, behavioral traits, parameter semantics, and return values. The output schema handles return structure, so the description appropriately focuses on explaining what the tool does and how to use it.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It successfully adds meaning for both parameters: 'repo_path' is explained as 'The absolute path to the repository,' and 'style' is detailed with its default value, two format options ('conventional' and 'simple'), and examples of their outputs. This goes well beyond the bare 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Generate a suggested commit message based on staged changes.' It specifies the verb ('generate'), resource ('commit message'), and scope ('based on staged changes'), distinguishing it from siblings like commit_all_changes (which performs the commit) or compare_commits (which analyzes differences between commits).

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 context for when to use this tool: 'useful as a starting point or for quick commits.' It explains the tool's heuristic nature ('simple heuristic, not a full LLM analysis'), helping users understand its limitations. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings.

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