git_commit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning side effects (e.g., creating a permanent commit), potential failures (e.g., no staged changes), or any required preconditions beyond staging. This is a significant gap for a mutating operation.

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 a single concise sentence that conveys the essential information without wasted words. It is efficiently front-loaded and demonstrates excellent brevity.

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 tool with an output schema and only two optional params, the description is fairly complete. However, it does not clarify how it differs from sibling tools like commit_changes or prepare_commit, leaving a minor gap in selection context. The core intent is clear, making it complete for basic invocation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional value beyond the schema, merely repeating the concept of a commit message. The parameter details are fully documented in the schema itself.

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 ('Commit') and resource ('staged changes') with the addition 'with a message', clearly distinguishing it from staging tools like git_add and other commit-related tools. The parenthetical '(git commit)' reinforces the underlying command.

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 clearly implies usage when there are staged changes to commit, providing context. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when NOT to use it (e.g., if changes are unstaged or if a different commit workflow is needed), so it misses the 'explicit when/when-not/alternatives' bar.

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