git_reset_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavior: it unstages all staged changes and explicitly states it is non-destructive. This covers safety and scope without contradiction.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and key constraint. Every word adds value with no redundancy.

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 unstaging tool with an output schema provided, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and its safety profile. No additional context is needed given the output schema documents return values.

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?

The single parameter repo_path has 100% schema coverage with a clear description. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific context beyond what the schema already provides, warranting a baseline score of 3.

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 'Unstages all staged changes' with a specific verb ('Unstages') and resource ('staged changes'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like git_add_tool, git_commit_tool, and git_diff_staged_tool by explicitly targeting the staging area.

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 provides clear context with 'non-destructive — does not discard modifications', implying the tool is safe for unstaging without losing file changes. However, it omits explicit guidance on when not to use it (e.g., for hard resets or discarding changes), which would improve score.

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