sandbox_git_commit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. The description indicates file staging and commit creation, but it does not mention whether this has side effects (e.g., modifying repository history) or what permissions are required. It lacks details on behavior like handling of untracked files or commit signing.

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 concise sentence that conveys the core functionality. It is efficient and contains no redundant information. It could be slightly improved by mentioning the optional nature of files, but it is already adequate.

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 tool's complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides a basic overview but lacks details on return values, error conditions, or the commit process (e.g., whether it creates a new commit or amends). The presence of sibling git tools suggests more integration context would be helpful.

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 description coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a basic description. The description adds that omitting 'files' stages all changes, which provides a slight improvement over the schema. However, no additional context is given for other parameters like authorName or authorEmail beyond the schema.

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 action ('stage files and create a git commit') and the context ('in a sandbox repository'). It is specific enough to distinguish from other sibling tools like sandbox_git_status or sandbox_git_clone.

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 indicates that staging is included as part of committing, but it does not explicitly say when to use this versus other git-related sibling tools (e.g., sandbox_git_push, sandbox_git_branch). No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are mentioned.

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