mcquest_git_context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full behavioral transparency burden. It clearly states the tool is read-only and lists the mutating operations it will never perform, which gives an agent confidence about safety. It also names the exact categories of information returned, making behavior predictable without over-explaining.

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 compact and front-loaded with 'READ ONLY,' which is high-signal for an agent triaging tool safety. The enumeration of non-performed operations is a bit long but earns its place by preventing incorrect use. Minor redundancy between 'READ ONLY' and 'read-only Git investigation information' exists, but it does not hurt clarity.

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?

The description covers the tool's main output categories and safety boundaries, while the presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values. However, because the parameters are undocumented and there are no annotations, an agent may still be uncertain how the limits are applied. This is a moderate completeness gap for a tool with two configurable parameters.

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 0%, and the description does not mention max_changes or max_commits at all. The parameter names and defaults in the schema are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not clarify whether limits apply to changed files, commits, or both. Given the lack of schema docs, the description should have compensated and did not.

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 purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Provide read-only Git investigation information.' It enumerates concrete outputs — branch, working-tree status, commits, changed files — and explicitly says it does not perform write operations. It does not differentiate from sibling tools by name, but the Git focus and non-mutating scope set it apart.

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 final sentence gives direct usage guidance: 'Use to understand recent changes and current branch state.' The description also lists operations the tool does not perform, helping an agent avoid invoking it for commits, pushes, merges, and similar actions. It does not name alternative tools or say when another sibling should be used instead.

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