checkpoint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It mentions creating a 'clean commit for the user to review', hinting at intent, but doesn't disclose whether the commit is pushed to remote, what happens if there are no changes, or other 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?

The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by critical timing guidance. Every word contributes to the purpose.

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 simple commit tool with fully documented parameters, the description provides sufficient context: clear purpose, timing, and user-review intent. The only notable gap is the absence of output/result information, but the operation's outcome is self-evident.

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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter described. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema's existing descriptions, so it stays at the baseline 3.

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 explicitly states 'Create a git commit with your changes', which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning itself as the pre-end_session commit step, separate from generic git_command.

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 explicit timing instructions: 'Call this AFTER completing your work but BEFORE end_session'. This clearly tells the agent when to use it, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with git_command for arbitrary git operations.

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