ctx_git

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior fully. 'Get' implies read-only, which is positive, but it does not state side effects (none expected), authentication needs, or performance implications. The description adds a bit beyond structured fields by listing outputs and the 'detail' parameter values.

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 short (three lines) and front-loaded with purpose. The parameter values list is useful but could be integrated more cleanly. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

With one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It does not explain default behavior (what 'summary' includes), or handle edge cases (no git repo). Given complexity is low, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

There is only one parameter ('detail') with 0% schema description coverage. The description explicitly lists possible detail values ('summary, commits, files, todos'), which adds meaning beyond the bare schema. This compensates well for the lack of schema documentation.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'Git intelligence', listing specific outputs (recent commits, changed files, branches, TODOs/FIXMEs). However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like ctx_project or ctx_summary, which could also return project or summary info.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ctx_search or ctx_recent. The description does not mention context, prerequisites (e.g., git repository must exist), or when not to use it.

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