ora_git_commit_style

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It indicates read-like behavior (analysis) but does not clarify if the tool modifies staged changes, requires a clean working tree, or if it commits automatically. The suggestion action is ambiguous regarding side effects.

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?

A single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the main action and object. No extraneous words.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description provides adequate context: input is the project path, output is a suggested commit message based on analysis of commit style. However, it could be more complete by noting the output format or any prerequisites (e.g., staged changes must exist).

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 single parameter 'project_path' has schema coverage at 100% with a description 'Chemin du projet'. The tool description adds context by linking it to the repository, but does not explain the default behavior when the parameter is omitted (since it's optional). This meets the baseline for schema coverage, with limited additional 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: analyze commit style and suggest a commit message for staged changes. The verb 'analyse' and 'suggere' specify actions, and the objects 'style des commits' and 'message' distinguish it from sibling git tools like ora_git_summary and ora_git_diff.

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 implies usage for staged changes ('pour les changements actuels (stages)'), providing context for when to use it. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to sibling tools like ora_git_diff for viewing changes or ora_git_summary for overall history.

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