Raw

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation profile is partly known from structured data. The description's only added behavioral content is the prohibition on arbitrary host commands, which is vague; it never says what state is modified, whether working trees are altered, or that a background job may be spawned.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded and free of padding, but the content is so thin that brevity stems from under-specification rather than disciplined editing. It is appropriately short but not appropriately informative.

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?

For an 11-parameter, output-schema-bearing tool that routes several actions (raw command, commit, commit_code, status, cancel, phased_push via phase/auto_start/target_project), the description is far too thin. Output schema relieves it of explaining return values, but the action dispatch and parameter families are never described.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the 11 parameters are fully documented in the schema (path, phase, job_id, command, message, summary, threads, projects, auto_start, run_precommit, target_project). The description adds no parameter meaning at all, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Raw (rm_git)" restates the name/title, and "Typed bulk Git operations" describes the rm_git family generically rather than stating what this specific tool does. It never mentions that the tool takes a `command`/action dispatch (e.g. the 'raw' action running 'git status'), and it does not distinguish itself from siblings like rm_git_status, rm_git_commit, or rm_git_add.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of the typed sibling tools that would be the obvious alternatives. "Arbitrary host commands are prohibited" is a constraint, not usage direction, so an agent gets no signal on when to pick raw over the specific typed operations.

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