git_add

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('adds') but doesn't cover critical traits: it doesn't specify if this is a read-only or mutating operation (though 'adds' implies mutation), doesn't mention error conditions (e.g., if files don't exist), and doesn't describe the output or side effects. For a tool with 2 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without fluff. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with the core action, making it easy 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?

Given the tool's complexity (a Git operation with 2 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the staging concept in Git, how this tool fits into a typical workflow (e.g., use before git_commit), or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with no structured support, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate but fails to do so. It doesn't explain what 'files' or 'repo_path' mean beyond their titles—for example, whether 'files' accepts glob patterns or paths relative to 'repo_path'. With 2 undocumented parameters, the description adds minimal value beyond the schema's property names, leaving semantics unclear.

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 'Adds file contents to the staging area' clearly states the verb ('adds') and resource ('file contents to the staging area'), which is specific to Git operations. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from similar siblings like git_commit (which commits staged changes) or git_reset (which can unstage changes), leaving some ambiguity about its unique role.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a git repository initialized), exclusions, or relationships with sibling tools like git_commit (which typically follows git_add) or git_status (which shows staging status). This lack of context makes it harder for an agent to select the right tool in a workflow.

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