Add repository

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

Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint=false, etc.), so the description carries the burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: path resolution to repository root (preventing duplicate adds), name defaulting behavior, and failure condition (NOT_A_GIT_REPOSITORY). This goes beyond the annotations and is valuable for the agent.

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 concise (three sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds essential detail: purpose, path behavior, and failure mode. No fluff or redundant phrasing.

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?

The tool has simple inputs and no output schema, but the description covers all necessary aspects: how path is used, name defaulting, and error conditions. There is no missing information that an agent would need to invoke it correctly, given the moderate complexity.

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 0%, but the description thoroughly explains both parameters: `path` can be any directory inside the working tree and is resolved to root; `name` defaults to folder name. This adds meaning that the schema (only type and constraints) does not provide, fully compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 (start tracking) and the resource (a git repository). It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_repositories and remove_repository by focusing on the 'add' action, and it provides specific details about path resolution that prevent ambiguity.

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 clear context on when to use: when you want to start tracking a git repository. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the sibling names (e.g., update_repository, remove_repository) imply different purposes. It provides a key exclusion: fails if not a git repository, which helps the agent decide when not to use.

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