git_commit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation but does not disclose that the commit is local and not pushed, what happens to staged files, or whether authentication is needed. Side effects and response behavior are absent.

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, front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is appropriately concise, but it lacks any auxiliary context that would make it more informative without becoming bloated, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 mutating git tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain that the commit is local, does not mention return values, and does not relate to sibling git workflow tools like git_status or git_push, making it incomplete for an agent to invoke safely in context.

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 already documents repo and files with helpful descriptions, covering 67% of parameters. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, but it does not contradict the schema. Message is left with only its name/type, so the description does not compensate, but schema coverage is sufficient for a baseline 3.

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 'Stage and commit changes in a repo checkout.' clearly identifies the action and target. It is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like git_status or git_pull, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or edge cases, so it stops short of a top score.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as git_status, git_push, or git_clone. The description does not include prerequisites (e.g., existing checkout, clean status) or workflow context, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name.

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