git_check_commits

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

Without annotations, the description fully describes the return payload (CheckReport, pass/fail, exit code) and the effect of the 'strict' parameter. It does not mention side effects, but as a read-only validation tool, this is adequate.

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: first defines purpose, second describes output. Zero wasted words. Highly efficient.

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, output format, and parameter behavior. It is complete for a tool with no output schema and a well-documented input schema. Minor missing: mention of the resolution chain for guidelines_path is already in schema.

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%, and the description adds value by explaining how 'strict' affects exit codes, which goes beyond the schema's parameter default description. This helps the agent understand runtime behavior.

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 validates commit messages against guidelines, distinguishing it from siblings like git_view_commits which only view commits. The verb 'validate' and resource 'commit messages' are specific.

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 mentions it mirrors a CLI command but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like git_view_commits or git_twiddle_commits. Some guidance is implied but not explicit.

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