Git Polite

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond this. It explains key features like including untracked files, numbering changed lines, pagination support, and auto-truncation of large diffs. It details how to handle truncated files and clarifies that this tool's output format is required for selective staging with `apply_changes`. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose. Each section (Key features, Handling truncated files, Use cases, Args, Returns) earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. The text is dense with actionable guidance while remaining focused on helping the agent use the tool correctly.

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 (pagination, truncation, line numbering) and the presence of annotations and output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral details, parameter semantics, and integration with sibling tools. The output schema handles return format documentation, so the description appropriately focuses on operational 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining all 5 parameters in the Args section. It provides meaning for each parameter: 'paths' filters files, 'page_token' is for pagination, 'page_size_files' is a safety limit, 'page_size_bytes' is the primary limit, and 'unified' controls context lines. Default values are noted, adding clarity beyond the bare 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: 'View unstaged git changes with line-level selection numbers for partial staging.' It specifies the verb ('view'), resource ('unstaged git changes'), and key functionality ('line-level selection numbers'). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling `git diff` by noting inclusion of untracked files and line numbering for staging.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'PREFER THIS OVER `git diff` when you need to selectively stage changes.' It also specifies when to use alternatives: use `diff` tool for truncated files, and notes that `git diff` output lacks line numbers. It lists specific use cases and mentions the next step: 'After viewing changes, use apply_changes with the line numbers.'

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