git_add

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It never states that staging mutates the git index, what happens when a path is missing, or that staging the repo root can sweep in unintended files — significant gaps for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

It is a single front-loaded phrase with no padding, which is structurally clean, but it is under-specified rather than efficient — the brevity comes at the cost of any useful information.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be described, but with no annotations and no parameter documentation, a two-parameter git mutation tool needs more than two words. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it safely is present.

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%: only titles ('repo', 'paths') exist. The description's word 'files' loosely hints at the required 'paths' array but says nothing about glob/pattern support, multiple paths, or what the default repo value '.' means.

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 phrase names a specific git verb and resource ('Stage files'), which is precise within git vocabulary and cannot be confused with siblings like git_commit or git_diff. It offers no explicit differentiation from those siblings, but the action itself is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to stage versus when to commit, no mention that staging must precede git_commit, and no note about which paths to include. The agent must infer the whole workflow context from git conventions alone.

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