commit_suggest

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The phrase 'render a prompt' usefully implies the tool produces text for the host agent rather than committing anything, but that implication is never made explicit, and nothing is said about output shape, failure modes when no diff exists, or that idempotentHint=false because each render can differ.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though it is arguably under-specified rather than genuinely concise.

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 five optional parameters, no output schema, and no sibling differentiation, the description carries real burden and only partly meets it. It communicates the source (git diff) and the product (a prompt) but omits what the caller should do with the result and what happens when there is nothing staged.

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 80%, so the schema already documents repo, staged, authority_file, and workspace_root, and the description adds no parameter detail beyond that. Only 'cwd' lacks a schema description and the description does not compensate for it.

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 ('render') and resource ('host-agent prompt for a Conventional + Lore Hybrid commit message based on git diff'), which is distinct from commit_policy and atomic_commit_preflight. However, 'render a prompt' leaves mild ambiguity about whether the tool produces a commit message, a template, or instructions for the caller.

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 and no mention of the closely related siblings (commit_policy, atomic_commit_preflight) that an agent must choose between. The only implied usage cue comes from the schema's 'staged' parameter, which the description itself does not discuss.

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