Vault git status and conflict-aware sync

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

Description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations. It states 'read-mostly' but clarifies push is a write operation, and explicitly lists behaviors: never auto-resolves conflicts, never uses --force, never invokes a shell, conflicts returned as structured data. Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) do not contradict and the description enhances understanding.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose 'Read-mostly git wrapper'. Each sentence adds essential information: available actions, forbidden operations, conflict handling, and prerequisites. No filler or 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?

Given the tool's complexity (git operations) and lack of output schema, the description covers key aspects: actions, safety constraints, conflict handling, timeout, and vault path requirement. It could mention that a git repo must be initialized, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool.

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 coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions, but the description adds value by explaining the action enum in detail (e.g., 'pull: fetch + ff-only merge; reports conflicts but never auto-resolves') and default behaviors (branch defaults to currently checked-out). This goes beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions.

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 it is a 'read-mostly git wrapper' for the Obsidian vault and lists specific actions (status, pull, push, log) with their effects. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, which are mostly about creating TouchDesigner nodes and effects, by being the only git-related tool.

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?

Description explains when to use each action ('see what's changed', 'fetch/fast-forward-only pull', etc.) and explicitly states what it never does (auto-resolve conflicts, use --force, invoke a shell). It lacks explicit advice on when not to use it or mention of alternatives, but given the sibling tools, it is the only option for git operations.

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