GitMCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('push') but doesn't reveal critical traits: whether it requires authentication, what happens on conflicts (e.g., merge requirements), if it's destructive (overwrites remote history), rate limits, or error conditions. This is a significant gap 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying essential purpose without redundancy.

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 complexity of a git push operation (a mutation with potential side effects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on authentication needs, conflict handling, success/error responses, and how it interacts with siblings like git_commit or git_pull. For a tool with such behavioral nuances, this is inadequate.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all three parameters (branch, path, remote) with defaults and types. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying these parameters might be involved in the push operation. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding further.

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 action ('push') and resource ('commits to remote repository'), which distinguishes it from siblings like git_pull, git_commit, or git_add. However, it doesn't specify what type of commits (e.g., local, staged) or differentiate from potential alternatives like force-push operations, keeping it from a perfect score.

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., needing commits ready to push, authentication status), exclusions (e.g., not for initial pushes or force pushes), or sibling tools like git_pull for fetching changes first. This leaves the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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