workflow_generate_commit_message

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

No annotations exist; the description only mentions the return type as a dictionary but does not disclose side effects, idempotency, or other behavioral traits. The description carries the full burden but adds minimal behavioral context beyond the return.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Description, Args, Returns, Examples) and is concise without unnecessary prose. The only minor issue is the inclusion of 'Args:' which is more common in docstrings but still clear.

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 no output schema, the description explains the return format. However, it does not list allowed commit types or validation rules, leaving the agent to infer from examples. The tool's purpose is clear but not fully comprehensive.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It provides brief descriptions for each parameter (e.g., commit_type: 'Type of commit') and examples showing valid values, but does not enumerate allowed commit types or enforce constraints beyond the schema's required fields.

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 generates a valid commit message following Conventional Commits, distinguishing it from sibling tools like workflow_validate_commit_message (validation) and workflow_generate_branch_name (branch name).

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?

Usage is implied through argument descriptions and examples, but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like workflow_validate_commit_message is provided.

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