git_reset

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Unstages all staged changes' implies a mutation operation but doesn't specify whether it's reversible, what permissions are needed, or if it affects the working directory. It lacks details on error conditions (e.g., no staged changes), side effects, or output format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 ('Unstages all staged changes') that is front-loaded and wastes no words. It directly conveys the core action without unnecessary elaboration, 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 mutation operation with no annotations, 1 parameter at 0% coverage, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like safety, reversibility, or error handling, nor does it explain the parameter or return values. For a Git reset tool, more context is needed to use it effectively.

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 meaning beyond the input schema, which has 1 parameter (repo_path) with 0% schema description coverage. It doesn't explain what repo_path represents (e.g., file path, directory, URL), its format, or default behavior. With low coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the parameter poorly documented.

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 'Unstages all staged changes' clearly states the verb ('Unstages') and resource ('all staged changes'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like git_add (which stages changes) and git_commit (which commits staged changes), though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives. The description is specific but could be more precise about scope (e.g., whether it affects the entire repository or specific files).

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 staged changes), exclusions (e.g., not for discarding unstaged changes), or related tools like git_checkout (for discarding changes) or git_reset with modes (e.g., --hard). Usage is implied from the action but lacks explicit context for decision-making.

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