git_add

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

Annotations already indicate the operation is destructive/mutating, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. It adds a useful behavioral detail—'without shell interpolation'—but doesn't disclose further effects such as whether the working tree changes or whether staging can be undone. No contradiction with annotations.

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 entire description is one short, front-loaded sentence. It places the action and object first and adds the distinguishing mechanism at the end without any filler.

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?

This is a simple two-parameter tool with a fully described schema, so the description plus schema are largely sufficient. It could mention that this only stages files and does not commit, but that is reasonably inferable from the tool name and sibling git_commit.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by saying paths are 'explicit' and that no shell interpolation is applied, which tells the agent the paths are treated literally and glob patterns won't be expanded.

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 starts with a specific verb, 'Stage,' and a precise resource, 'explicit repository paths.' It also distinguishes itself from shell-based alternatives by saying 'using Git directly, without shell interpolation,' making its role clear relative to the shell_command sibling.

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 phrase 'without shell interpolation' signals a clear context: use this when you want to stage paths directly via Git without shell expansion. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use them, but the contrast with shell_command is implied well enough.

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