git-mcp-server

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

Annotations indicate `readOnlyHint: false`, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: it clarifies this 'resets the context without restarting the server' and explains the side effect on subsequent operations. It does not contradict annotations.

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?

Three sentences efficiently cover: (1) the action, (2) the mechanism (no restart needed), and (3) the side effects/workflow implications. Front-loaded with purpose and zero waste.

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 presence of an output schema and the tool's narrow scope (state reset), the description adequately covers the operational context and side effects. It appropriately omits return value details since an output schema exists.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage for the single 'confirm' parameter, the schema fully documents the input requirements. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, meeting the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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 explicitly states the tool clears the 'session working directory setting' (specific verb + resource), distinguishing it from sibling `git_clean` (which removes files) and other git operations that manipulate the filesystem.

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 clear context by explaining consequences ('Subsequent git operations will require an explicit path parameter') and references the complementary sibling tool `git_set_working_dir` for recovery. However, it lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance.

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