ck_git_commit

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

The description transparently discloses the tool's write nature ('Write operation — creates a git commit') and the conditional behavior when blocked findings exist ('the commit is not created and the findings are returned for remediation'). It aligns with annotations (destructiveHint=true) and adds context beyond them.

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, with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary action and then adds key details in a logical order: validation, write operation, return values, usage order, and push reminder.

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 existence of an output schema, the description appropriately explains return values and the condition for commit creation. It also includes pre-requisite advice (ck_git_status) and post-commit step (push separately), making it self-contained for the agent.

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 description adds context to the 'message' parameter by mentioning validation against governance policy. For 'project_root', the schema already provides adequate description. The 'session_id' parameter lacks description in both schema and description, which slightly reduces score. With 67% schema coverage, the description partially compensates.

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 explicitly states the tool's dual function: validating a commit message against CK governance policy and executing git commit if validation passes. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like ck_git_status and ck_git_diff by noting the pre-requisite of checking governance state first.

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 when-to-use guidance: 'Use ck_git_status first to confirm governance state, then ck_git_commit to create the commit.' It also advises that the tool does not push to remote, directing the user to use git push separately.

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