Git MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return format ('matching files and lines') but lacks critical details: whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), pagination behavior (though parameters suggest it), rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. For a search tool with 5 parameters, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 perfectly concise: two sentences that directly state the tool's function and return value with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and follows with essential output information. Every sentence earns its place.

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 5 parameters with full schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and return format but lacks behavioral context (transparency issues) and usage guidance. For a search tool with pagination and repository targeting, more context about limitations, authentication, or error handling would improve completeness.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., doesn't explain query syntax, ref defaults, or pagination behavior). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work, though the description could have added value by clarifying search semantics.

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 tool's purpose: 'Search for code in a repository' specifies the verb (search) and resource (code in repository). It distinguishes from siblings like get_file_contents (retrieve specific file) or list_commits (list commits), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other search-like tools (none exist in sibling list). The second sentence adds value by specifying the return format.

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., repository access), when not to use it (e.g., for metadata searches), or how it compares to similar operations like get_repository_tree (which lists files without content search). The agent must infer usage from the name and parameters alone.

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