git_bisect

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

Annotations are all false, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds crucial context: 'stash local changes first, because the session checks out commits automatically' and 'Does NOT inspect history.' This goes beyond the schema and annotations, revealing side effects and scope.

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 functional but contains redundancy: 'Use this to binary-search...' and 'Best for: binary-searching...' say the same thing. The first two sentences overlap in intent. It could be tighter, though the overall structure is logical with sections for purpose, best for, returns, and warnings.

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 session-based tool with side effects and no output schema, the description covers the workflow, return type ('git bisect progress output'), pruning condition ('stash local changes'), and alternative tool. It doesn't explicitly state what happens if commit is omitted for good/bad, but the schema hints that commit is needed for those operations. Overall, sufficiently complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds workflow semantics that clarify how to sequence the operation parameter: 'Start with start, alternate good/bad marks, and reset to end the session.' It also clarifies that 'commit' is the target for marks, adding value beyond 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Drive a bisect session: start, mark good/bad commits, or reset.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and explicitly distinguishes itself from git_log by noting 'Does NOT inspect history — use git_log to understand commits before bisecting.'

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use this to binary-search which commit introduced a regression') and an explicit alternative ('Does NOT inspect history — use git_log'). It also outlines the correct workflow order: 'Start with start, alternate good/bad marks, and reset to end the session.'

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