brain_from_git

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses incremental behavior and progress updates to stderr, but it does not clarify whether the tool mutates existing data, requires specific permissions, or if it is idempotent.

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 concise (4 sentences) and front-loaded with the main purpose. It could be slightly tighter but effectively communicates key points without unnecessary details.

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?

Considering the tool has 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, incremental behavior, and progress updates. It lacks details on prerequisites (e.g., git repo access) and return value, but is otherwise complete for a bootstrap tool.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions. The description adds context about incremental being default and the nature of parsing commits, but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema. 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Bootstrap brain lessons from git history' and explains how it works (parsing commit messages, inferring fix/feature/refactor lessons). It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling brain_* tools by focusing on git history ingestion.

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 implicit usage guidance by stating it's 'Great for onboarding an existing codebase' and mentions incremental behavior, but it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives among siblings.

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