list_pending_edits

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the return value structure and behavior when no edits are staged (returns null). However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or mention any side effects, but for a list-like tool this is sufficient.

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 two sentences, front-loading the key purpose and listing return fields. Every word adds value with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns (branch, base commit SHA, source description, full edit log) and the null case. This is complete for a simple list operation.

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 zero parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. Per the guidelines, this yields a baseline of 4. The description does not add parameter information because none exist.

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 specifies a clear verb ('show') and resource ('staged edits in the working copy'), listing specific return fields (branch, base commit SHA, source description, full edit log). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'commit_and_push' or 'discard_pending_edits' which perform different actions.

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 implies usage for reviewing staged edits but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'commit_and_push' or 'discard_pending_edits'. While the context is clear, no direct guidance on exclusions or prerequisites is provided.

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