GitMCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Commit staged changes' implies a write operation that modifies repository history, but it lacks details on permissions needed, whether it's reversible (e.g., via git reset), error conditions (e.g., no staged changes), or output format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 a single, efficient phrase ('Commit staged changes') with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded and directly conveys the core action without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 2 required parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like safety, reversibility, or error handling, nor does it explain the commit's effect or return values. For a Git operation that alters repository state, more context is needed.

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%, with both parameters ('message' and 'path') clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain message conventions or path requirements). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Commit staged changes' clearly states the verb ('commit') and resource ('staged changes'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like git_add (which stages changes) or git_push (which pushes commits), but the core action 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., requiring staged changes via git_add), exclusions (e.g., not for uncommitted changes), or relationships with sibling tools like git_push for remote sharing. Usage is implied but not articulated.

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