git_diff_staged

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read-only nature is established without the description. The description adds the workspace-root boundary, which is useful behavioral context, but it does not describe the output format or behavior when no changes are staged. With annotations covering the safety profile, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the operation, the resource, and the scope constraint compactly, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 read-only tool with one optional parameter, the description is complete: it specifies what is shown, where it applies, and how the path is interpreted. No output schema exists, but the standard nature of a staged Git diff means the return behavior is well understood. Annotations cover the safety profile, and no critical usage detail is missing.

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% and the sole parameter repo_path is already documented as 'Workspace-relative repository path; defaults to .' The description reinforces the workspace-relative concept but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides, 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Show') and a specific resource ('staged Git changes') and clearly distinguishes this tool from its sibling git_diff_unstaged by the 'staged' qualifier. The phrase 'for a repository below the configured workspace root' also adds scoping clarity.

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 makes the tool's scope clear: it operates on staged changes rather than unstaged ones, which is the key selection signal among the sibling diff tools. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but for a simple diff utility the context is sufficiently clear.

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