sourceCommit の取得と反映

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states it modifies the translation front matter, which is a write operation, and that it fetches a commit from the content repository. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., file creation, network requirements) or failure behavior. The core behavior is transparent, but details are sparse.

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 one concise sentence, front-loaded with the context ('content リポジトリで'), and every clause adds meaning. 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?

While the description states the main action, it lacks context about return values, error conditions, or prerequisites. Since there is no output schema, the absence of return-value information is notable. Given the tool's moderate complexity (read+write) and lack of annotations, the description is adequate but not rich.

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?

The only parameter `url` is fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already states. The description's mention of 'corresponding original text' loosely connects to the URL, but this is not explicit parameter-level detail.

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 retrieves the latest commit for a source document in the content repository and writes it to the translation file's front matter as l10n.sourceCommit. The verb-resource pairs (get commit, write front matter) are specific and distinguish it from sibling tools like mdn_trans_start or mdn_trans_review.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. It does not mention prerequisites, alternatives, or situations where it should be avoided. The context is implied by the tool name (commit_get), but no direct comparison to siblings is offered.

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