ck_git_commit

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

With no annotations, the description takes full responsibility. It discloses the write operation nature, explains the validation step, and details the return values including blocked findings. It also describes the conditional execution when blocked findings exist. Lacks information on authentication or error states, but is otherwise transparent.

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 a single paragraph with no redundant sentences. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately follows with behavior details, usage guidance, and outputs. Every sentence serves a clear purpose.

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 explains return values (validation result, blocked findings, commit SHA). It mentions preconditions (use ck_git_status) and postconditions (doesn't push). However, it does not cover potential error scenarios or permission requirements, which would complete the picture.

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 covers 2 of 3 parameters with descriptions (67%). The description does not add meaning beyond the schema for 'message' and 'project_root', and 'session_id' remains undocumented in both. The description focuses on tool behavior rather than parameter details, so it provides marginal added value.

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?

Description clearly states it validates a commit message against CK governance policy and executes git commit if validation passes. The verb 'validate and execute' is specific, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ck_git_diff and ck_git_status by focusing on the commit creation step.

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?

Explicitly advises to use ck_git_status first to confirm governance state, then ck_git_commit. Also clarifies that it does not push to remote, recommending a separate git push. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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