Get Staged Files

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves a list but doesn't describe the return format (e.g., array of file names, detailed metadata), pagination, error handling, or performance implications. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying essential 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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that retrieves data. It doesn't explain what the returned list contains (e.g., file names, paths, status), how errors are handled, or any limitations (e.g., large repositories). For a read operation with no structured output documentation, this leaves the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively.

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 100% description coverage, with 'repoPath' clearly documented as 'Full path to the git repository.' The description doesn't add any parameter details beyond this, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting, but doesn't compensate with additional context like format examples or constraints.

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 action ('Retrieve') and resource ('list of staged files in a git repository'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_diff' or 'get_file_content', which might also retrieve git-related information but for different resources.

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 like 'get_diff' or 'get_file_content'. It lacks context about scenarios where staged files are needed, prerequisites (e.g., repository must exist), or exclusions (e.g., not for unstaged files).

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