Validate a commit message

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

Description discloses returns: compliance status, problems (violations), warnings (hints). With no annotations, this is adequate but fails to mention side-effects (likely none) or response structure beyond vague categories.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with action and resource. No extraneous information.

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 low complexity (1 param, output schema exists), description adequately conveys purpose and returns. Missing explicit mention that output structure is defined by schema, but not critical.

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 covers 100% of the single parameter with description 'The full commit message to check'. Tool description adds no additional semantic detail beyond schema, meeting baseline.

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?

Description clearly states 'check a commit message against the Udacity Git Commit Message Style Guide', specifying verb and resource. Sibling tool 'format_commit_message' suggests different operation, but no direct differentiation is made.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., format_commit_message). No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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