git_commit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one non-obvious behavioral trait: it stages changes before committing (unlike a plain commit that only commits already-staged changes), which is useful context. But it omits failure modes (e.g., nothing to commit), whether the commit is local or pushed, permission requirements, and reversibility.

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 efficient sentence with the core action front-loaded. No wasted words, though it is arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise for a mutation tool with no annotations.

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 simple 3-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally viable: it covers the core purpose and staging behavior. It is incomplete regarding failure conditions, return value (e.g., commit hash), and whether the commit is pushed, but the complete schema reduces the severity of those gaps.

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 100%, so all three parameters (cwd, files, message) are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the vague phrase 'structured message', which does not clarify format or syntax beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource: 'Stages changes and creates a git commit'. Clear what it does and clearly distinct from read-only siblings like git_status and git_diff. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from other mutation siblings (e.g., git_merge) or name an alternative when committing is not the right action.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, no alternatives mentioned. The description only says what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer when it is appropriate versus git_status, git_diff, or other workflow tools.

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