stageRepo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Stages changes' implies a write operation that modifies the repository state, it doesn't specify what 'staging' entails (e.g., adding files to an index), potential side effects, authentication needs (implied by optional user/password params but not explained), or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 waste—'Stages changes in a Git repository' is front-loaded and directly conveys the core action without unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 complexity of a Git staging operation (a mutation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what 'staging' means, how it interacts with other Git tools, what the expected outcome is, or any error handling. For a tool with behavioral implications and multiple parameters, this minimal description fails to provide sufficient context for effective use.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for 'repo', 'user', and 'password' parameters. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't clarify what 'stages changes' means in terms of these inputs). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, though no extra value is added.

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 'Stages changes in a Git repository' clearly states the action (stages) and resource (changes in a Git repository), which is specific enough to understand the basic function. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'pushRepo' or 'gitPullRepo' that might also involve Git operations, making it somewhat vague in context.

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. With siblings like 'pushRepo' and 'gitPullRepo' present, there's no indication of whether 'stageRepo' is a prerequisite for pushing or how it fits into a Git workflow, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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