Generate Commit Message

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. "Retrieves" and the underlying git diff --staged command imply a read-only, non-mutating operation, which is useful disclosure. It fails to state prerequisites or edge behavior — that it requires a git repository, that it depends on something actually being staged, or how large diffs are handled — which matters for a git-inspection tool.

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?

Two short sentences with the mechanism front-loaded and the usage hint second; there is no padding. Minor deduction because the opening clause is doing double duty as a description of a tool whose name says something different, which makes the structure feel slightly incoherent rather than wasteful.

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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core mechanic and the intended moment of use, which is largely sufficient. It is not complete enough given the name/description mismatch and the absence of any annotation profile: an agent cannot tell whether the "clean formatting" output is textual, structured, or truncatable, nor how this differs from git_info.

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?

Parameter count is 0 with 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no arguments are required and describes the implicit input (the staged index) that the tool reads instead of parameters.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Retrieves all staged changes (git diff --staged)"), but it conflicts with the tool's own name and title, "Generate Commit Message," which promises message generation the description explicitly disclaims. An agent selecting by name could easily expect a commit message and instead get a diff dump, so the purpose is described but not reliably aligned with what the tool is called.

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?

It gives a clear context ("Use this to review what's staged before writing a conventional commit message"), which is a genuine when-to-use signal. However, it names no alternative and draws no boundary against the sibling git_info, which likely also surfaces repository state, leaving the selection decision partly to inference.

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