git_check_commits

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It declares read-only behavior, describes the return payload (YAML with CheckReport, pass/fail summary, exit code), and explains defaults for parameters. It could mention potential side effects (none), but overall it is transparent for a read-only tool.

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 (four sentences) with no wasted words. It front-loads purpose, then usage, then parameter notes, then return format. Every sentence adds value.

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 the tool has 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers essential context: read-only nature, alternative tool, required range format, default behaviors (model, repo_path, guidelines_path), and return payload structure. It could elaborate on the CheckReport contents, but the existing description is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 the schema already documents all parameters well. The description adds minor context for `range` (required, example) and mentions CLI mirroring, but does not significantly enhance the parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 verb 'Validate' and the resource 'commit messages in a range against commit guidelines'. It explicitly notes the tool is read-only ('never modifies commits') and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool `git_twiddle_commits` which rewrites messages.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'Use this to report problems; use `git_twiddle_commits` instead to rewrite the messages.' It also clarifies that `range` is required (unlike the CLI default), giving a concrete example.

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