Commit Conventional Message Court (CCMCP)

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. While it mentions returning a 'structured verdict,' it fails to disclose whether the operation is destructive, if it persists data, rate limits, underlying LLM usage, or what the verdict actually contains (criticisms, scores, etc.).

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?

Single sentence with zero filler. The core action and return value are front-loaded. No redundant words or tautology.

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 6-parameter tool with enum constraints and sibling relationships, the description is minimally viable. It states the core function and hints at output structure ('structured verdict'), but lacks workflow context and behavioral details that would be necessary given the absence of output schema or annotations.

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 100%, so baseline expectations are met by the schema itself. The description mentions 'commit subject and diff' which reinforces the two required parameters, but adds no syntactic details, format constraints, or semantic relationships between parameters (e.g., how style affects the verdict).

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 core action ('Put on trial') and inputs ('commit subject and diff'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'require_better_subject' (which focuses only on subjects) and 'render_verdict' (which likely displays rather than prosecutes). The courtroom metaphor is consistent with the tool name, though 'put on trial' requires slight interpretation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (court.render_verdict, court.require_better_subject) or whether this is the first step in a multi-tool workflow. No prerequisites or exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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