rush_commit-msg

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the key non-mutating trait ('without modifying Git history'), but it omits other important behaviors such as how invalid messages are reported, exit codes, or whether validation is purely local. This is a partial disclosure at best.

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 compact sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler words. It is appropriately concise, though its brevity comes at the cost of omitting parameter and usage details.

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?

For a tool with 9 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, this one-liner is incomplete. The output schema may cover return values, but the agent still lacks critical context about what 'path' refers to, how the commit message is supplied, and what the allow_* toggles control. The large undifferentiated sibling list increases the need for context.

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% and the description mentions none of the 9 parameters. The required 'path' is unexplained, 'message' is not clearly tied to the supplied commit message, and the seven allow_* boolean flags have no described meaning, so an agent cannot infer correct usage from the description.

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 states a specific action ('Validate') and a specific resource ('Conventional Commit messages'), and adds a useful boundary by noting it does so without modifying Git history. This distinguishes it from mutating Git operations, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling rush_* tools, nor any workflow context such as pre-commit usage or CI integration. The single sentence implies purpose but gives no conditions, exclusions, or alternatives.

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