commit_backup

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

Despite no annotations, the description thoroughly discloses side effects (network touch, git push), auth mechanism (local git credentials), rate limiting (remote may), idempotency (no-op commit skipped), and error conditions (throws on failure). This fully compensates for missing annotations.

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, with every sentence adding essential information. It front-loads the warning about side effects and network access, and avoids any fluff.

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?

For a simple parameter structure (one required param, no output schema), the description covers return value format, usage context, side effects, and failure modes completely. No gaps.

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 input schema has one parameter (project_id) with 100% coverage. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's 'Project ID', but this is adequate. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 syncs KB data to git backup, commits, and pushes. It is specific about the action (sync, commit, push) and resource (project's KB data to git backup directory), and distinguishes from siblings by being the only explicit backup/commit tool.

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 advises use after a batch of KB writes to get changes off-machine. It also mentions conditions when it throws (no backup repo, push fails), implying when not to use. Could be more explicit about alternatives among siblings, but none directly comparable.

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