svn_precommit

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions 'read-only' but does not disclose what happens if checks fail, how results are aggregated, or any side effects (e.g., no destructive actions). The list of components is vague.

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 a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the key concept 'composite read-only precommit check'. It efficiently lists components, though could benefit from more structure.

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 complexity of a composite tool and no output schema, the description is too brief. It lists components but does not explain what each check does, how results are returned, or what warnings look like. Incomplete for an AI agent to invoke 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 description does not mention any parameters. Schema coverage is 67% (cwd and paths have descriptions, lineLimit has constraints but no description). The description adds no value beyond the schema for understanding parameter usage.

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 it's a composite read-only precommit check and lists the components (status, diff, EOL check, etc.), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that only perform one of these tasks.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this composite tool versus running individual sibling tools (e.g., svn_status, eol_check, svn_diff). The description lacks explicit usage context or exclusion criteria.

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