rush_commit_msg

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

The description discloses the key side-effect (no Git history modification), which is valuable given that no annotations are provided. However, it does not cover other behaviors such as error handling, return format, permissions, or the meaning of the various boolean parameters (allow_slow, allow_build, etc.). With no annotations, the description only partially carries the transparency burden.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the core purpose succinctly with no fluff. It is appropriately concise, though it sacrifices detail for brevity, which is why it is not a 5.

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 annotations, and a non-trivial schema, the description is severely inadequate. It omits parameter semantics, usage context, behavioral details, and return behavior, making it impossible for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without substantial additional information.

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 input schema has 9 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no explanation of 'path', 'message', or the permission-like boolean flags. The description fails to compensate for the schema gap, leaving an agent unable to correctly populate the parameters without external knowledge.

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 a specific verb ('Validate') and resource ('Conventional Commit messages'), and explicitly negates side effects ('without modifying Git history'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, none of which suggest commit-message validation, so an agent can identify its purpose without ambiguity.

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 mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no context about prerequisites, and no explicit exclusions. The description only states the primary action, leaving the agent to infer that it is meant for validating commit messages, but without any guidance on scenarios where it might not be appropriate or alternatives to consider.

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