git_stash_list

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

The parenthetical "read-only" merely repeats the existing readOnlyHint annotation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond structured fields, such as ordering, repository scope, or what happens with the default repo.

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 extremely short, front-loaded, and contains no wasted words. For a simple list operation, the core purpose is immediately clear.

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?

The tool is simple, has rich annotations, and has an output schema, so the description covers the basic purpose adequately. However, the repository parameter is completely unaddressed, leaving the agent to infer its meaning from the schema alone.

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 0% for the single repo parameter, and the description does not mention it at all. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, but its default of "." and scope are left entirely to the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "List stashes." This clearly distinguishes the operation from sibling git commands like git_status, git_diff, or git_log, though it does not name an explicit alternative.

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?

Usage is only implied by the read-only listing nature. The description does not explain when to use this versus other git inspection tools, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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