Code MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Push commits to remote' implies a write/mutation operation that could affect remote state, but it doesn't mention potential side effects (e.g., overwriting remote changes, requiring force push in conflicts), authentication needs, or error conditions. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Push commits to remote'), making it immediately scannable and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical context like what happens on success/failure, whether it's idempotent, or how it interacts with sibling tools (e.g., git_commit must precede it). The agent must rely on external Git knowledge, which is risky for reliable tool invocation.

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%, with all three parameters (remote, branch, cwd) documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as default values (e.g., 'origin' for remote, current branch) or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Push commits to remote' clearly states the verb ('push') and resource ('commits to remote'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this from sibling tools like git_commit or git_pull, which would require mentioning it's specifically for sending local commits to a remote repository.

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 like git_commit (for creating commits) or git_pull (for fetching from remote). There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing commits ready to push) or context for usage, leaving the agent to infer this from general Git knowledge.

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