commit_policy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the content is a policy body tied to this specific harness, which is modest but real context. It says nothing about whether the returned policy is plain text or structured, and the idempotentHint=false on a parameterless getter is left unexplained.

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 with no filler, and the resource being fetched is front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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 zero-argument getter with no output schema, the description gives the essential identity of the returned artifact. The main residual gap is the shape of the return value (raw text vs structured sections), which the description leaves unspecified.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description misleads about inputs.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: it returns the Conventional Commit + Lore body policy used by this harness. The scope ('used by this harness') makes clear it is a fixed, harness-specific artifact rather than a general spec. It does not, however, differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as commit_suggest or atomic_commit_preflight, which an agent would have to infer.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. An agent must guess that this is a read-before-committing helper and infer its relationship to commit_suggest and atomic_commit_preflight rather than being told.

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