git_commit

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

The description implies mutation (records changes) but offers no further behavioral details such as requiring staged changes, side effects, or commit creation. With no annotations providing behavioral info, the description is insufficient.

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 single sentence is concise but lacks structure. It could be improved by adding a brief explanation of parameters and usage context without becoming verbose.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description omits critical details like parameter meanings and prerequisites (e.g., staged changes). It is incomplete.

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%, yet the description does not explain either parameter (repo_path, message). It adds no meaning beyond the schema field names.

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 'Records changes to the repository' is vague and does not differentiate git_commit from siblings like git_add, which also records changes. It fails to specify that it creates a permanent snapshot with a message, and the verb 'records' is too generic.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., git_add for staging, git_reset for undoing). The description provides no context for selection.

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