git_commit

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

With no annotations, the description explains important behavioral details: execution timing, on_timeout options, and durable job_id for background tasks. However, it omits side effects like modifying git history.

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 verbose and repeats the tool name. It front-loads timing instructions instead of stating the primary function. Could be more concise and structured.

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?

Tool has 9 parameters and no schema descriptions; the description only covers timing and timeout behavior. Missing context on return value, side effects, prerequisites (e.g., staged changes), and implications of committing.

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 explains timing parameters but does not clarify core parameters like 'path', 'message', 'all_tracked', or 'allow_empty'. Since schema descriptions are missing (0% coverage), the description should compensate but only partially does.

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 does not explicitly state the tool's purpose; it focuses on execution timing. The name 'git_commit' implies committing changes, but the description should clarify that it creates a git commit in a repository.

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?

No guidance on when to use git_commit versus sibling git tools like git_add or git_checkout. It only provides timing setup instructions but not usage context or prerequisites.

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