git-quick-commit

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It mentions auto-generation but does not clarify whether it stages changes automatically, handles unstaged files, or what the auto-generation logic is. No disclosure of safety (e.g., irreversible commit).

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 efficiently conveys core functionality, but could be restructured to include essential behavioral details. Still, it is not overly verbose.

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?

No output schema and no return value description. Critical behavioral context (e.g., whether staging is automatic, what happens to unstaged files, commit outcome) is missing. Lacks completeness for a commit 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters (message optional with auto-generation, directory defaults to cwd). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 performs a commit with automatic message generation based on changes, which differentiates it from standard commit tools. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling 'git-commit' beyond the auto-generation hint.

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?

Implies use for quick commits when you don't want to write a message, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives like git-commit. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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