Restore working tree files to discard local changes, or use staged to restore files from the index. Specify one or more paths and optional repository directory.
Restore working tree files.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cwd | No | Optional local working directory or repository path. | |
| paths | Yes | Paths to restore. | |
| staged | No | Restore from the index with --staged. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose that this is a destructive operation that overwrites uncommitted working tree changes, nor does it explain the distinction between staged (index) and working tree restoration.
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 with no filler. It is appropriately sized but perhaps too terse for a tool with meaningful behavioral nuances.
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?
For a destructive git operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to warn about data loss, explain the staged vs unstaged behavior, or mention any recovery options, leaving the agent without critical context.
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 already documents all three parameters including the staged flag. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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?
States a verb (restore) and resource (working tree files), which is better than a tautology. However, it does not differentiate from the many similar destructive/mutating siblings (git_reset, git_clean, git_checkout), and 'working tree files' is arguably misleading since the staged parameter enables restoring the index too.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus git_reset, git_checkout, or git_clean, which overlap heavily. The description gives no context for when restoration is appropriate or what alternatives exist.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.