veto_pre_commit

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

Describes parallel execution, hard block on secrets, and returning a verdict. readOnlyHint annotation is consistent, and description adds behavioral detail beyond 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with core action, then performance comparison and output format. 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?

Covers purpose, behavior, comparison, output format. No output schema, but verdict format is implied. Could mention if it modifies state, but readOnlyHint covers that.

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 coverage is 100%, but description adds context: project_dir auto-reads staged changes, context is optional branch name, agent_outputs is for agentic loop. Adds value beyond schema.

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?

Description clearly states it runs secrets scan and code review on staged changes. It distinguishes from sibling veto_full_review by noting it's faster and tuned for commit-time validation.

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 compares to veto_full_review, indicating use for commit-time rather than full review. Implies use as pre-commit gate, but does not exhaustively list when not to use.

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