git_commit_all

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

With no annotations provided, the description lacks critical behavioral details: what happens if the working tree is clean, whether untracked files are staged, or any side effects. The single sentence is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 short (one sentence) and thus concise, but it lacks any structure such as separate sections for use case, parameters, or behavior, making it less scannable.

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 no output schema and two undocumented parameters, the description does not explain return values (e.g., commit hash), error states, or behavior on clean working tree, leaving the agent with significant uncertainty.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain the 'cwd' or 'message' parameters beyond implying 'message' is needed for the commit. No parameter semantics are provided.

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 uses a specific verb ('Stage all changes and create a Git commit') and includes a condition ('if the working tree is dirty'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like git_push_current_branch or git_status.

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 implies usage for committing all tracked changes, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives like selective staging.

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