git-mcp-server

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

The annotation declares readOnlyHint=true, which the description respects by using 'View'. The description adds valuable context about recovery use cases. However, it misses important reflog-specific behaviors like 'local-only history', 'expires after 90 days by default', or 'does not sync to remotes'.

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?

Two efficient sentences with zero waste. The first defines the operation, the second states the value proposition. Every word earns its place.

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 (so return values need not be explained) and the readOnly annotation, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and primary use case. Could be improved by noting the local-only nature of reflog data.

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, the baseline is 3. The description provides no additional parameter details beyond the schema, but none are needed given the comprehensive schema documentation for path, ref, and maxCount.

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 specific verb ('View') and clearly identifies the resource ('reference logs/reflog'). It distinguishes from sibling git_log by specifying it tracks when 'branch tips and other references were updated' rather than showing commit history.

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 identifies a key use case ('recovering lost commits'), which hints at when to use the tool. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over git_log or other history tools, and doesn't state prerequisites like requiring a local repository.

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