repo_git_commit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and covers key behavioral traits: local-only commit, no push/amend/reset/rebase/checkout/hooks, and never staging sensitive paths. It also discloses the configuration flag and mode requirement, offering comprehensive behavioral transparency.

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 four short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded. Every sentence adds useful information, covering preconditions, exclusions, and security behavior with no fluff.

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 covers purpose, conditions, mode requirements, exclusions, and sensitive-path safety, which is substantial for a mutation tool with no annotations. The presence of an output schema accounts for return-value details, so the description is sufficiently complete for context.

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 0% and the description does not explain the `message` or `paths` parameters beyond general hints like 'Sensitive paths are never staged.' The message's purpose is inferable, but the paths parameter semantics remain underspecified for selecting specific changes to commit.

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 opening sentence 'Create one local Git commit for allowlisted pending changes' uses a specific verb, resource, and scope. It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like repo_git_status and repo_apply_patch.

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 preconditions (ALLOW_GIT_COMMIT enabled, write/test mode) and explicitly lists actions it does not perform (push, amend, reset, rebase, checkout, skip hooks). It gives clear context and exclusions, but does not explicitly name alternative tools for related operations.

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