Format a Udacity-style commit message

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

The description discloses formatting behaviors (capitalization, period removal, body wrapping) but omits other behavioral details such as handling of missing optional fields, error conditions, or whether existing formatting is overridden. With no annotations, the description should cover more.

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 concise with two sentences, no unnecessary words. It front-loads the main purpose and efficiently communicates the key formatting rules.

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 the tool has an output schema (likely describing the formatted string), the description need not cover returns. It adequately explains input formatting, though it could mention that type must be from the enum. Still, it is mostly complete for its simple task.

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 description adds value beyond the schema by explaining that subject is auto-capitalized and trailing period removed, and body is auto-wrapped. Schema description coverage is 75%, so the baseline is 3; the extra semantics raise it to 4.

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 composes a Udacity-style commit message from parts, specifying key formatting actions (capitalization, period removal, wrapping). It distinctively contrasts with the sibling validate_commit_message by focusing on composition rather than validation.

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 does not explicitly provide when or when-not to use this tool versus the sibling. The purpose is clear, but no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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