get_pre_commit_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it samples various data, includes conditional logic (CW/ERROR only if impl_run exists), and outputs markdown. It implies read-only behavior by mentioning '跑完 impl 之后' but does not explicitly state it won't trigger synthesis/implementation.

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?

The description is well-structured: purpose first, then typical use, bullet-pointed content list, output format, and args. It is slightly verbose but every sentence provides useful information with no fluff.

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?

There is an output schema, so return value details are covered by schema. The description covers input args, output format, and usage scenarios. It misses prerequisites like project/session existence, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a tool with two parameters.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains impl_run as the run used to query runme.log counts with default impl_1, but session_id is only described as '目标会话 ID' which adds little meaning. The description does not fully document how session_id is used.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: generate a project summary for git commit body, listing specific content (timing/resource/CW/status). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_timing_report and get_utilization_report by being a composite summary generator.

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 description explicitly mentions a typical use case: after RTL changes and implementation, to fill commit body with key numbers. It does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or mention alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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