Git Polite

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe, exploratory operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the tool uses 'progressive disclosure' to avoid token limits, shows recent commits and file statistics, and provides step-by-step instructions. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or potential side effects, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 well-structured and concise. It starts with a clear purpose statement, then lists key features in bullet points, provides usage guidance, and ends with return information. Every sentence adds value without repetition, and it's front-loaded with the most important information.

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 tool's complexity (guided session for organizing commits), the description is complete. It explains the purpose, workflow, when to use it, alternatives, and behavioral traits. With annotations covering safety and an output schema declared, the description doesn't need to detail return values or permissions, making it fully adequate for the agent's needs.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's behavior and output. A baseline of 4 is applied for zero parameters, as the description compensates by explaining what the tool does without redundant parameter info.

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: 'Start a guided session to organize and commit all unstaged changes with appropriate granularity.' It specifies the verb ('organize and commit'), resource ('unstaged changes'), and scope ('with appropriate granularity'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on guided organization rather than direct diff viewing (list_changes, diff) or other operations (apply_changes, unstack).

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use this when you have multiple logical changes mixed together and want to organize them into separate, well-structured commits.' It also provides alternatives: 'Use list_changes or diff tools to view detailed changes for specific files.' This gives clear context for when to choose this tool over its siblings.

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