prepare_commit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It implies a non-destructive, read-only analysis through 'suggested' and 'for approval', but it never explicitly states that the tool does not modify files, perform commits, or have other side effects. It also omits information about dependencies (e.g., being inside a git repository) or required permissions.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the action and purpose. It contains no fluff, repetition, or unnecessary detail, making it easy for an agent to quickly parse and understand the tool's core function.

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?

Despite having an output schema to describe return values, the description is incomplete for proper invocation. It fails to explain the required 'session_summary' parameter, omits usage guidance relative to sibling tools, and provides no behavioral transparency. The tool's complexity is simple, but the missing parameter semantics and lack of side-effect disclosure leave significant gaps for an AI agent to use it correctly.

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 zero description coverage for its parameters, yet the description adds no meaning to them. It does not explain the role of 'session_summary' nor how 'path' is used, leaving the agent to guess what these parameters represent. The description's mention of 'summary' is ambiguous and could refer to either the parameter or the output, not clarifying the parameter's purpose.

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 function: analyzing modified workspace files and generating a suggested conventional commit message and summary for approval. It uses specific verbs ('analyze', 'generate') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like commit_changes and git_commit by emphasizing it only produces a suggestion rather than performing a commit.

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 purpose inherently conveys a usage context: when a user has modified files and wants a proposed commit message before actually committing. The phrase 'for approval' gives a clear workflow expectation. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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