workspace_git

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. The description is minimal and does not explain that git commands are executed directly and may modify the repository (e.g., commit, push), or that this could have side effects. However, the verb 'run' implies execution, and the examples given (status, log, diff) are read-only, partially mitigating the concern. A 3 is appropriate because the description does not contradict any annotation but lacks depth.

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 very concise at one sentence. It front-loads the action and resource. While it earns its place by stating the purpose, it could benefit from one more sentence clarifying scope or behavior 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?

Given the complexity of running arbitrary git commands (potential for mutation, security implications, output handling) and the lack of annotations or output schema, the description is somewhat incomplete. It does not explain what happens to the output, error handling, or working directory assumptions. However, for a common operation like 'run git command', many agents may infer these details. A 3 reflects adequate but not thorough coverage.

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 high (100%), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-level guidance beyond what the schema provides. For command, it gives examples (status, log, diff) but does not clarify if arbitrary git commands are allowed, if there are restrictions, or if output is captured. The description adds minimal value over the schema.

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's purpose: 'Run git commands in a project directory'. It specifies the verb 'run' and the resource 'git commands in a project directory'. While it distinguishes itself from sibling non-git tools, it does not differentiate from other git-related siblings like gitea_repos, gitea_repo_info, etc., which operate on a remote Gitea service versus local repositories.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention that this is for local repository operations while gitea_* tools are for remote Gitea API interactions. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., directory must be a git repository), no exclusions, and no alternatives.

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