GitMCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read or write operation, what permissions are required, whether it's destructive, what happens during execution, or what the expected outcome is. 'Create a backup' implies a write operation but lacks all behavioral context.

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 concise at just two words, with zero wasted text. It's front-loaded with the core action, though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness. Every word earns its place by stating the essential function.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'backup' entails, what resource it operates on, what the output looks like, or any behavioral characteristics. The minimal description fails to compensate for the lack of structured metadata.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters (provider, repo, includeIssues, includePRs) with their types and descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 for adequate schema coverage.

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 'Create a backup' is a tautology that restates the tool name without specifying what resource is being backed up or distinguishing it from sibling tools like backup_list. It lacks a specific verb+resource combination and doesn't clarify what type of backup this creates (e.g., repository backup vs. configuration backup).

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like backup_list, doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., authentication status), and offers no context about appropriate use cases or limitations.

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