get_commit_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: 'No external AI call — derived from structured spec data already in the database.' It also describes the return format. This adds transparency beyond basic function.

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 short paragraphs with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: what it does, how it works, what it returns, when to use.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value. It covers all 5 parameters (via schema) and provides usage context. Lack of annotations is compensated by transparent behavior description. Minor gap: no explicit mention of required permissions or side effects, but not critical for a read-only data processor.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining default behavior for 'domain' (env var fallback), recommending 'task_id' for precision, and clarifying the purpose of 'files_changed'. This exceeds mere schema repetition.

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 ('Generate') and resource ('conventional-commits-style message'), clearly distinguishing the tool from all siblings which are SEO-related. The verb 'generate' accurately reflects the tool's function.

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 explicitly states 'Use this before committing to get a well-formatted message,' providing clear usage context. It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the purpose is sufficiently unique.

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