git_commit_analyze

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'changed files, statistics, and impact' but does not disclose what 'impact' means, potential error states, or performance implications for large commits.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and object, containing no redundant information. It earns its place with precise wording.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should elaborate on return values (e.g., format, key fields). It only vaguely mentions 'changed files, statistics, and impact,' leaving the agent guessing about the tool's full output.

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?

Both parameters are well-documented in the schema (repoPath and commitHash with default). The description adds no further detail for individual parameters, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage but does not enhance meaning.

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 analyzes a specific commit in detail, including changed files, statistics, and impact. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like git_diff (diff analysis) and git_log (history) by focusing on a single commit's comprehensive breakdown.

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 implies usage when a detailed analysis of a specific commit is needed, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or comparisons with alternatives like git_diff for detailed file changes.

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