validate_commit_message

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

States the tool is read-only validation, which is a key behavioral trait. Without annotations, the description fully covers behavior and describes the return structure (overall status and per-check results).

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 concise and well-structured: first paragraph states purpose and output, second provides usage guidance, third lists parameters. No superfluous content.

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 (4 parameters, no annotations, with output schema), the description is complete, covering all parameters, usage context, and output format. It also differentiates from siblings.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining each parameter's purpose (message required, config for inline JSON overrides, repo_path for repo-relative config, config_path for custom config file), adding meaning beyond the schema.

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 validates a commit message against commit-check rules, specifies it is read-only, and distinguishes it from the sibling tool validate_commit_context by stating this tool is for a single message string.

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 when to use this tool ('when you have a specific commit message string') and when not to, providing an alternative (validate_commit_context for batch validation).

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