source_control

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

The description adds behavioral context by noting it is Git-backed and provider-agnostic, which is helpful beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose potential side effects of actions like revert (though the destructiveHint annotation is false), nor does it explain operational details like locking semantics. The annotations already cover the read/write nature, so this is acceptable but not rich.

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 long, front-loads the tool's purpose, and lists actions in a compact, scannable manner. Every sentence earns its place without unnecessary verbosity.

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?

The tool is complex with 7 parameters and 7 distinct actions, but the description only provides a high-level summary. While the schema enriches each parameter and action, the description does not clarify how actions interrelate, prerequisites, or return values (no output schema exists). It is adequate but not complete for an agent to fully understand the tool's capabilities.

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 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all parameters in detail (e.g., action enum descriptions, ref for revert/changed_since, paths for commits). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 identifies the tool as a source control integration and lists the specific actions it supports (status, checkpoint, revert, etc.), which makes its purpose concrete. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'checkpoint' tool, which could cause confusion for the agent.

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 source control operations by listing the available actions, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like the 'checkpoint' sibling. No exclusions or preconditions are mentioned, such as requiring a git repository.

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