emacs_git_stage

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says it stages files; it does not state that this modifies the Git index, that the change is reversible, whether the operation fails outside a repository, or what the tool returns.

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 focused sentence with no padding or repetition. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 is low-complexity: one optional, fully documented parameter and no nested objects or enums. The description plus schema is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. Return values are not described, but the lack of an output schema makes that less critical here.

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%, and the files parameter already explains its role and the empty-array-for-all semantics. The description adds no substantive meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 'Stage file(s) for commit' contains a specific action and resource: it stages files for a Git commit. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like emacs_git_unstage and emacs_git_commit, even without naming them.

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 no explicit when-to-use guidance and names no alternatives or exclusions. An agent must infer from the tool name and common Git workflow that staging precedes committing and that unstaging is the inverse operation.

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