git_stash

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It implies a mutation (stashing saves and reverts) but does not explain that the working directory becomes clean, that stashes are stored in a stack, or what happens to untracked files.

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 sentence that is efficient and front-loaded with the verb. However, it lacks depth, which could be considered under-specification rather than conciseness, but it remains 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 the complexity of the git stash operation (affects working directory and index, stores multiple stashes) and the presence of sibling tools (apply, pop), the description is incomplete. It does not explain stash stack behavior or that the operation is reversible.

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% with a single parameter 'repo_path' described as 'Path to Git repository'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, hence a baseline score of 3.

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 'Stashes changes in working directory' uses a specific verb 'stashes' and clearly identifies the resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like git_stash_apply and git_stash_pop, which perform different operations on stashes.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., git_add, git_commit). There is no mention of prerequisites, such as having staged changes, or that stashing is typically used to temporarily save work.

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