veto_commit_message

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

The description adds value beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by specifying that it reads staged changes via git diff --cached. This provides insight into the tool's behavior and data source without contradicting 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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that conveys the purpose, input, and output without any fluff. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

The tool has no output schema, but the description outlines the return structure (type, scope, subject, body) and specifies the Conventional Commits format. Parameters are fully documented. This is adequate for a straightforward generation tool.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning (e.g., that project_dir is for the repo, hint is optional context), but does not go beyond the schema's 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 the tool generates a conventional-commit message from staged changes using git diff --cached, specifying the output components (type, scope, subject, body). This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like pr_description or changelog.

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 implies usage when a user has staged changes and needs a commit message following Conventional Commits. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an AI agent to decide.

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