git_commit

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It mentions return structure and options (files, skip_hooks), but lacks details on side effects (e.g., automatic staging, error handling, or repository state requirements). Incomplete but not missing.

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 (6 lines), front-loads the main action, and each sentence provides distinct value: type list, options, and return format. No wasted words.

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?

The description covers purpose, parameters, and return value, but lacks prerequisites (e.g., staged changes, git repo requirement) and error conditions. Given no annotations and moderate complexity (4 params), more context would improve completeness.

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 significant meaning beyond the schema: it lists allowed types (feat, fix, etc.) where schema only has a string, explains 'files' defaults to all changes, and clarifies 'skip_hooks' bypasses pre-commit hooks. Schema coverage is 0%, so description compensates well.

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 action: 'Create conventional commit (type: message) with Claude attribution.' It specifies the verb (create), resource (commit), and format (conventional), distinguishing it from sibling tools like git_push or git_status.

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 implies usage for committing changes but does not explicitly provide when-to-use vs alternatives or exclusions. Options like 'files' and 'skip_hooks' offer some context, but no direct guidance on tool selection.

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