git_smart_commit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the core analysis-to-generation flow and the staged/current distinction via 'staged or current git diff.' However, given the tool is named 'commit,' it never explicitly states it does NOT create or mutate a commit — an agent could wrongly expect repo writes. The verb 'generate' implies non-mutation but leaves the safety profile ambiguous.

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 sentence with zero filler, front-loaded with the action verb and resource, and the output details packed efficiently at the end. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey what is returned — it does say a 'message' is generated, which covers that. But it leaves gaps: no clarity on whether the tool mutates the repo, no detail on the message's format/surface, and no statement of prerequisites (e.g., an existing commit history for generating scope). Adequate for a 2-param tool, but the mutation ambiguity is a real omission.

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%: cwd is 'Target repository directory path' and stagedOnly is fully explained with conditional behavior. The description adds only marginal value by echoing 'staged or current,' which maps to stagedOnly. With the schema doing the heavy lifting, baseline 3 applies.

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 (Analyze), resource (git diff), and concrete output (Conventional Commit message with scope, rationale, breaking change warnings). This clearly differentiates it from siblings: git_status reports state, git_review_diff reviews diffs, git_resolve_conflicts resolves conflicts, git_release_changelog produces changelogs. An agent can distinguish it without opening any schema.

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 intended use (generate a commit message from a diff) is implied strongly by the purpose statement, but there is no explicit guidance on when NOT to use it or which sibling to prefer. For instance, it never says 'use git_review_diff when you want analysis rather than a message.' The usage window is inferable, not stated — acceptable but not excellent.

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