git_add

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds that only explicit files are staged and flags are disallowed, which is useful context but does not disclose behavior like index state changes, error handling, or interaction with untracked files.

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 tightly written sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the important limitation on Git options is stated in a single follow-up sentence.

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 a simple two-parameter tool with annotations covering safety and an output schema absent, the description plus input schema provides enough for correct invocation. Minor missing context like default staging behavior or success response is not critical for this operation.

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 50%; the 'files' parameter lacks a description in the schema, but the tool description clarifies that paths must be repository-relative. The repo_path parameter is already described in the schema, so the description adds partial but not complete parameter-level meaning.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Stage') and resource ('explicit list of repository-relative files'), clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings like git_status or git_commit. It also adds a scope constraint, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 states that only an explicit file list is accepted and that arbitrary Git options are not allowed, giving clear input-shape guidance. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but no other sibling provides staging functionality, so the guidance is sufficient.

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