rba_git_sync_files

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable safety behavior: refusal with a pre-staged index and avoidance of git add --all. These are meaningful traits not visible in the schema. While it does not describe errors, return values, or permissions, the disclosure of core safety mechanisms earns a strong score.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no filler. The second sentence adds critical safety context without bloat. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and constraints.

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 5-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main workflow (commit specific files, push optionally) and a key edge case (pre-staged index refusal). It leaves some gaps, such as return values and error handling, but the description provides enough context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in most scenarios.

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 only 20% (only 'branch' has a description). The tool description compensates somewhat by explaining that 'files' are selected existing files and that 'push' is optional and targets the current branch. However, 'message', 'remote', and the default behavior of 'branch' are not elaborated beyond schema defaults. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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: 'Explicitly commit selected existing RBA workspace files and optionally push the current branch.' This gives a specific verb (commit), resource (selected files), and an optional follow-up (push). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like rba_git_status (which only shows status) and file-writing tools by focusing on the selective commit/push workflow.

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 implies the appropriate usage context: committing specific files without risking unrelated scripts being included. It explicitly notes that it 'refuses to run with a pre-staged index' and 'never uses git add --all,' which tells the agent when this tool is and isn't suitable. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide a clear 'when not to use' contrast with siblings.

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