sandbox_git_push

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the need for GITHUB_TOKEN (authentication requirement) and implies the action is a push (which may overwrite remote history). However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., force-push behavior, conflict outcomes) or rate limits. The description adds some context beyond the schema but lacks depth.

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 two sentences long, with the primary action in the first sentence and a key prerequisite in the second. No superfluous information.

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 (standard git push operation, 5 parameters, no output schema), the description is functionally complete enough for an agent to understand the basic action. However, it lacks behavioral details like error conditions (e.g., if no commits exist, or authentication fails) and does not explain the return value or confirmation. With low complexity and good schema coverage, a 3 is adequate.

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 5 parameters. The description does not mention parameters, which is acceptable since the schema covers them. Baseline 3 is 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?

The description uses a clear verb-resource pair ('Push commits to a remote repository') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sandbox_git_pull, sandbox_git_clone, and sandbox_git_commit. The scope is specific and 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 states 'Requires GITHUB_TOKEN for authentication', providing a prerequisite. However, it does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., sandbox_git_commit for local commits, sandbox_git_pull for fetching). No explicit when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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