generate_commit_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only discloses that no commit is made, leaving unaddressed how the branch note is retrieved, potential side effects, or behavior when no branch note exists. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation safety 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?

The description is a single, tight sentence that front-loads the action ('Generate a commit message') and the key constraint ('without making the commit'). No wasted words or filler 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must explain the tool's behavior and return value, but it does not. It also fails to define what a 'branch note' is or how it is accessed, leaving the agent with significant unknowns about execution and expected results.

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 description coverage is 100%, with all three parameters described in the input schema. The tool description does not add any extra parameter semantics—its mention of 'branch note' is too vague to clarify how parameters like branchName interact. Baseline 3 is appropriate due to complete schema coverage.

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 that the tool generates a commit message (verb+resource), specifies the source as 'based on the branch note', and explicitly notes it does not commit. This distinguishes it from commit-execution tools and sibling tools like generate_jira_comment.

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 phrase 'without making the commit' implies that this tool is for generating a message only, but the description does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it name any sibling tools as alternatives. The usage context is implied rather than clearly defined.

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