commit_backup

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

The description openly declares side-effectful behavior, network access, reliance on local git credentials, lack of Kontexta rate limiting but possible remote rate limits, idempotency with no-op commit on steady state, and error conditions. This is thorough, especially given no 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 three sentences that front-load the side-effect warning. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 no output schema, the description explicitly specifies the return format and highlights edge cases (throws conditions, idempotent behavior). It fully covers the tool's behavior for an agent to use 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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'project_id' with a basic description. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, thus a baseline score of 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 to origin. The verb 'sync' combined with the resource and actions provides a specific purpose, distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle file operations or search.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use after a batch of KB writes to get changes off-machine,' providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, though the usage is well implied.

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