commit_validate_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it barely does so. 'Validate and analyze' weakly implies a read-only operation, but the description doesn't disclose that authentication is required (despite the api_key parameter), what 'Pro' means for gating, whether fix_suggestions or generate_changelog cause side effects, or what the output looks like. A mutation/reporting tool with zero annotation coverage needs far more.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the primary verb and resource. Every word earns its place except the ambiguous '(Pro)' marker, which adds marketing noise without explanation. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

The description captures the core purpose but leaves notable gaps: all four parameters are optional, including range, which is logically needed to validate anything; the '(Pro)' gating and required api_key are unexplained; and with no output schema, the return value (validation report? errors? changelog?) is never hinted at. The 100% param schema coverage compensates for some of this, but the tool's overall behavior remains under-specified.

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 the baseline of 3 applies — all four parameters (range, api_key, fix_suggestions, generate_changelog) are already documented in the schema with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so there is neither a gap nor 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?

The description states a specific action ('Validate and analyze') on a specific resource ('existing commit history') against a defined standard ('conventional commit standards'). The word 'existing' distinguishes it from setup-oriented siblings like commit_setup_conventional and commit_setup_husky, though it never names them explicitly. The '(Pro)' suffix is cryptic but doesn't obscure the core purpose.

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 phrase 'existing commit history' implies this tool is for retroactive validation rather than initial setup, which gives some context against siblings like commit_setup_conventional or changelog_from_commits. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance, no named alternatives, and no mention of prerequisites such as requiring a git repository with an api_key configured.

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