atomic_commit_preflight

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'read-only' while adding real substance: the exact categories of repository state it inspects, including secret-like path detection, which is a meaningful safety behavior an agent could not infer from annotations or schema. It does not describe whether it fails on detected secrets or merely reports them, which is the one behavioral gap.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the operation and its read-only nature, then lists outputs compactly. Every clause carries information and nothing is repeated.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the necessary work of enumerating what the preflight reports (branch/upstream, file states, secret-like paths, style hints). The auth requirement for HTTP transport is covered by the authority_file schema description rather than the tool description, leaving only minor gaps such as the report format and secret-detection consequences.

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 75%, so path, authority_file, and workspace_root are already documented at the schema level. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, and 'cwd' remains undocumented in both places, 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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Run a read-only git preflight') and enumerates the concrete checks it performs (branch/upstream, staged/unstaged/untracked files, secret-like paths, commit style hints), which clearly separates it from siblings like commit_policy and commit_suggest. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so an agent must infer the boundary rather than being told.

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 phrase 'for the atomic-commit-push workflow' situates it in a context, implying it should be run before committing. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over commit_policy or commit_suggest, and no when-not-to-use guidance at all.

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