smart_git

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

With no annotations, the description provides behavioral context: compact output, filtered hunks, one-line log, minimal confirmation. This goes beyond the input schema by describing output formats and confirmation behavior.

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?

A single paragraph with a clear list of operations. Every sentence adds value, and the key information is front-loaded: 'Execute git operations with compact, optimized output'.

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 variety of operations and no output schema, the description covers each operation's output format. It could mention more about confirmation prompts or error handling, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to use the tool 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?

Schema coverage is 100% (baseline 3), but the description adds significant meaning: it explains each operation's output style (e.g., 'compact summary' for status, 'filtered hunks' for diff) and notes the filter_level parameter's 'passthrough' for raw output.

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 'Execute git operations with compact, optimized output' and lists specific operations (status, diff, log, commit, etc.), distinguishing this tool from siblings like filtered_shell by emphasizing optimized output.

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 implies when to use this tool (for git operations needing compact output) by listing supported operations and their formats. However, it does not explicitly exclude usage or mention alternatives, though siblings hint at different use cases.

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