git_diff_staged

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 tool 'shows changes', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it's safe, what format the output is in, or any side effects. This is inadequate for a tool with potential complexity in Git operations.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, 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 complexity of Git operations, no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like output format, error conditions, or how it interacts with sibling tools, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides (a single 'repo_path' parameter). With 0% schema description coverage, the description doesn't compensate by explaining what 'repo_path' means or its format. However, since there's only one parameter, the baseline is slightly higher, but it still lacks meaningful semantic context.

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 verb ('shows') and resource ('changes that are staged for commit'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'git_diff' or 'git_diff_unstaged', which would require mentioning it specifically shows staged changes versus unstaged or all changes.

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 like 'git_diff' or 'git_diff_unstaged'. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing a staged change) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and description alone.

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