git_commit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'Records changes' without disclosing that it creates a permanent history entry, requires staged changes, or can fail if no changes are staged. Critical behavioral traits are missing.

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?

Extremely short (only 4 words). While brevity is valued, it lacks key information such as prerequisites (staging) or output. This is under-specification rather than effective conciseness.

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 complexity of git commit and the presence of many sibling tools (15), the description should explain that it commits staged changes, requires a message, and typically returns a commit hash. No output schema exists, so the description must convey return value context. It fails to do so.

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 each parameter described adequately. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema (e.g., what a commit message should contain). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as schema already handles parameter documentation.

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 states 'Records changes to the repository' which captures the core function of committing. However, it does not specify that it commits staged changes or explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'git_add' (which stages) or 'git_reset' (which undoes). The purpose is clear but not specific enough to avoid ambiguity among related tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it should mention that it follows staging (git_add) or that a message is required. Without such context, an agent may misuse the tool.

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