ralph_git_commit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates a commit, implying a write operation, but doesn't disclose critical traits like permissions required, whether it's destructive (e.g., overwrites data), error handling, or rate limits. The mention of 'auto_commit' adds some context but is insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place by adding relevant information without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 (a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and basic usage but lacks details on behavioral traits, error cases, or return values. For a git commit tool, more context on what 'current iteration' means or how it interacts with other git operations would improve completeness.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with one parameter 'message' documented as 'Commit message.' The description adds minimal value beyond this, mentioning 'custom message' but not elaborating on format, length constraints, or examples. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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: 'Create a git commit for the current iteration' and 'manually create a commit with a custom message.' This specifies the verb (create), resource (git commit), and context (current iteration). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like ralph_git_context or ralph_git_status, which might handle git operations differently.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool: 'Use this to manually create a commit with a custom message' and notes that 'If auto_commit is enabled, commits are created automatically.' This implies usage when manual control is needed, but it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or specify when-not-to-use scenarios beyond the auto_commit note.

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