git_add_or_commit

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds limited behavioral context (the two modes) but doesn't disclose side effects like irreversible changes or permissions needed.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, and contains no wasted words. It efficiently explains the dual functionality and the key parameter.

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 tool's complexity (dual operations), schema coverage is complete. The description could note that message is required for commit, but it's implicit. No output schema, so return values are acceptable to omit.

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 description only restates that the action parameter chooses the behavior. Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds no new meaning beyond what's already in the parameter descriptions.

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 performs 'git add' or 'git commit' based on the action parameter, using specific command syntax. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like git_log_or_diff and git_status by combining these two common operations.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use add vs commit, or when to prefer this tool over other sibling tools like gitlens_commit_composer. It lacks explicit context for usage or alternatives.

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