git_commit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no mention of pre-commit hooks, signing, failure modes on empty staging area, or that repeated calls with the same message create new commits (non-idempotent). No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Four words, front-loaded and waste-free, but terse to the point of under-specification rather than economical. Brevity here costs more than it saves.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but for a mutating tool with zero parameter documentation and no stated preconditions, the description leaves the agent to infer the repo target and staging prerequisite. Inadequate for the tool's complexity.

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 0% across two parameters (message required, repo defaulting to '.'). The description says nothing about either — not that message is the commit message, nor that repo defaults to the current directory — so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

Specific verb + resource: 'Commit' acts on 'staged changes'. It is clearly distinct from git_add (staging) and git_diff/git_status among the many git siblings. It stops short of naming a sibling or clarifying scope (e.g. does it push?), so not a 5.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternatives are stated. The phrase 'staged changes' faintly implies git_add must run first, but the agent must supply that prerequisite from domain knowledge rather than the text.

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