lgh_add

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

The description thoroughly discloses all side effects: it creates a bare repository, adds a remote, initializes a git repo if needed, and lists specific error conditions (path not exist, name already registered, bare repo already exists). It also mentions the return value (repo name and clone URL). This transparency exceeds the annotations, which only indicate it's not read-only or destructive, and aligns with the mutating nature described.

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 detailed but not overly verbose. It packs essential information (actions, error cases, related tools, return value) into a few sentences without redundancy. While slightly longer than necessary, the structure is logical, progressing from the main action to side effects to error handling to related guidance, which aids comprehension. It earns a 4 for being effective without being bloated.

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 there is no output schema, the description explicitly states what the tool returns: 'Returns the repository name and its clone URL.' It also mentions prerequisite behavior (initializes repo if needed) and error handling, covering all operational aspects. With a list of sibling tools, it provides enough context for an agent to understand the tool's role in the workflow. This is complete and self-sufficient.

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 already provides clear descriptions for both parameters: 'Optional custom name for the repository on LGH' and 'Absolute path to the LOCAL working directory containing the Git repository.' The description does not add significant extra meaning beyond the schema, but it does reference the 'name' in an error condition, which slightly reinforces its role. Since schema coverage is 100% and descriptions are adequate, this is a baseline score.

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 primary function: 'Register a local Git repository with the LGH local server.' It specifies the verb (register), the object (local Git repository), and the target (LGH local server), making the purpose unambiguous. It also implicitly distinguishes it from siblings by describing a unique setup action.

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 explicit guidance on subsequent tool usage: 'Use lgh_up to push subsequent commits and lgh_remove to unregister.' This tells the agent when to use other tools after this one, clearly framing this as the initial registration step. It also implies that this tool is for initial setup, which distinguishes it from update/removal operations.

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