git

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only says 'Run a git command' and gives examples, but does not mention potential side effects (e.g., mutations from commit/push), error handling, or return value format. This is a significant gap for a tool that can execute arbitrary git commands.

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 sentence plus examples, immediately stating the tool's action. It is front-loaded and concise, with no wasted words, achieving maximum clarity in minimal space.

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 simplicity, the description covers the basic command invocation, but it omits important context such as return behavior and cwd semantics. Since an output schema exists, return values may be partially covered, but the lack of usage guidance and cwd explanation keeps this at a minimum viable level.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the 'args' parameter with concrete examples, but the 'cwd' parameter is not explained at all. The examples add meaningful context, but the incomplete coverage of cwd prevents a higher score.

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 runs a git command with specific examples. It distinguishes itself from siblings like run_shell by focusing exclusively on git operations, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 gives a clear sense of usage via examples ('status', 'log --oneline -10', 'commit -m "fix bug"'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like run_shell, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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