Git MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool 'supports' operations and is for 'storing and retrieving work-in-progress changes', but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify whether operations are destructive (e.g., 'drop' or 'clear' permanently remove stashes), mention authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or output format. For a tool with multiple mutation actions, this is a significant gap.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences: the first states the purpose and supported operations, the second clarifies the tool's role. It's front-loaded with key information and avoids redundancy. However, the second sentence ('for storing and retrieving...') slightly repeats the first without adding new insights.

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 (10 parameters, multiple mutation actions), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral risks (e.g., data loss from 'drop'), prerequisites, or expected outputs. For a multi-action Git tool with no structured safety hints, more guidance is needed to ensure correct agent usage.

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 100%, providing detailed parameter documentation. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only implying that parameters relate to 'stash operations' without explaining interactions (e.g., how 'includeUntracked' works with 'patch'). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with additional context.

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 as 'Git stash tool for temporary changes management' and lists the specific operations supported (stash, pop, apply, list, show, drop, clear). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on stash operations rather than other Git functions like branches, tags, or analytics. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with specific sibling tools like git-reset or git-workflow.

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. It doesn't mention when to choose stash operations over other Git tools (e.g., git-reset for discarding changes or git-commit for permanent saves) or clarify use cases for different actions like 'pop' vs 'apply'. Usage is implied through the operation list but not explicitly stated.

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