ck_git_commit

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is a write operation, creates a git commit, returns validation results and commit SHA on success, and does not create the commit if blocked findings exist. However, it does not explain the behavior for partial validation failures (e.g., warnings) or the meaning of the session_id parameter.

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 concise at 6 sentences, well-structured with the primary purpose first, followed by conditional behavior, return values, and usage guidance. It could be slightly tighter by merging redundant phrases, but overall efficient.

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 adequately covers return values (validation result, blocked findings, commit SHA) and the conditional commit behavior. It addresses the tool's complexity (validation + conditional commit) but lacks details on error handling (e.g., invalid project_root) and the role of session_id.

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 already describes 'message' and 'project_root', but the description adds no extra semantics for these parameters. The 'session_id' parameter lacks a schema description and is not explained in the description, leaving its purpose unclear despite 67% schema coverage.

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 dual function: validate a commit message against CK governance policy and execute git commit if validation passes and no findings are blocked. It uses specific verbs ('validate', 'commit') and resource ('git commit'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ck_git_status and ck_git_diff by mentioning the prerequisite and noting that it does not push.

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool: after ck_git_status to confirm governance state. It also notes what it does not do (push to remote), guiding the agent to use git push separately. This provides clear context and alternatives.

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