validate_commit_context

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

Explicitly states 'Read-only validation' and describes the structured return format (overall status, per-check results with fields like check name, status, value, error, suggest). With no annotations, this provides good behavioral context.

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?

Well-structured: first sentence for purpose, then read-only note and return shape, then usage guidance, then parameter list. Front-loaded with core function. Slight redundancy with parameter list but justified.

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 no required parameters and 7 optional, description clarifies at least one must be provided. Mentions return structure fields. Siblings are listed in context. Sufficiently complete.

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%, so description fully compensates. All 7 parameters are explained: message, branch, author_name, author_email, config (inline JSON overrides), repo_path (repo-relative config), config_path (custom TOML file). Adds meaning beyond names.

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 it runs combined commit-check validations for message, branch, and/or author in one call. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the specific tools for individual aspects.

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?

Explicitly says 'At least one of message, branch, author_name, or author_email must be provided' and directs users to specific validate_commit_message, validate_branch_name, or validate_author_info tools for individual aspects.

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