repo_commit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says to 'commit staged changes,' implying a state change, but does not describe what happens if there are no staged changes, whether it requires local repo access, or what the output indicates. This is minimal compared to the burden on the description.

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 one concise sentence that immediately conveys the operation. No verbose or redundant content.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks important context for a mutation tool: it doesn't mention the expected state of the repo (e.g., staged changes must exist), whether it affects remote branches, or how it fits into the broader git workflow among sibling tools. The description is too sparse to guide effective usage.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameter meanings. It clarifies that 'message' is the commit message, but it does not explain 'workspace_id' at all. The description adds insufficient value for the parameters, especially for a required identifier like workspace_id.

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 function: committing staged changes with a commit message. It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like repo_push or repo_diff.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., staging changes first), follow-up actions (e.g., pushing), or situations where this tool would not be appropriate.

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