git_commit

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

Annotations declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds key behavioral traits: it doesn't stage files, can amend previous commits, and returns 'No changes to commit' with a staging hint. 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 sentences, front-loaded with primary purpose, and every sentence provides useful guidance (when to use, what it doesn't do, return behavior). No wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity and absence of output schema, the description covers use cases, side-effect boundary, and return values. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly among many git siblings.

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 already covers all parameters (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description enriches semantics by explaining why amend and no_verify are used and how message relates to the commit, adding value beyond schema descriptions.

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 'Create a commit with the given message, or amend the last one' — a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from siblings by noting it does NOT stage files and is best used after git_add.

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?

Explicitly provides when to use: when staged changes are ready, to amend the last commit (amend=True), or to skip hooks (no_verify=True). It also gives an exclusion ('Does NOT stage files') and directs to git_add/git_status as alternatives.

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