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 ('adds') but doesn't cover critical traits: it doesn't specify if this is a read-only or mutating operation (though 'adds' implies mutation), doesn't mention error conditions (e.g., if files don't exist), and doesn't describe the output or side effects. For a tool with 2 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without fluff. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool's complexity (a Git operation with 2 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the staging concept in Git, how this tool fits into a typical workflow (e.g., use before git_commit), or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with no structured support, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate but fails to do so. It doesn't explain what 'files' or 'repo_path' mean beyond their titles—for example, whether 'files' accepts glob patterns or paths relative to 'repo_path'. With 2 undocumented parameters, the description adds minimal value beyond the schema's property names, leaving semantics unclear.

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 'Adds file contents to the staging area' clearly states the verb ('adds') and resource ('file contents to the staging area'), which is specific to Git operations. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from similar siblings like git_commit (which commits staged changes) or git_reset (which can unstage changes), leaving some ambiguity about its unique role.

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 a git repository initialized), exclusions, or relationships with sibling tools like git_commit (which typically follows git_add) or git_status (which shows staging status). This lack of context makes it harder for an agent to select the right tool in a workflow.

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

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. 'Switches branches' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose critical traits like whether it requires a clean working directory, what happens to uncommitted changes, or if it can create new branches. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and risks.

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 extremely concise with just two words, front-loaded and zero waste. Every word earns its place, making it efficient for quick scanning, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 tool's complexity (mutation operation with 2 parameters), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, parameters, and output, failing to provide enough context for safe and effective use.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It adds no meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain what 'branch_name' and 'repo_path' represent, their formats, or constraints. For a tool with 2 parameters and no schema descriptions, this is inadequate.

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 'Switches branches' states a clear verb ('switches') and resource ('branches'), but it's vague about scope and doesn't differentiate from siblings like git_create_branch or git_reset. It doesn't specify if this only switches existing branches or can create new ones, leaving the purpose somewhat ambiguous.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing branch), exclusions (e.g., not for creating branches), or compare to siblings like git_create_branch for branch creation or git_reset for undoing changes. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Records changes' implies a write operation that creates a commit, but it doesn't disclose key traits: whether it requires staged changes, what happens on failure (e.g., if no changes are staged), if it's destructive (it creates immutable commits, but this isn't stated), or authentication needs. The description is minimal and misses critical behavioral context.

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 no wasted words. It's front-loaded and clear in its brevity, though it could be more informative. The structure is appropriate for its length, but it lacks depth.

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 commit operation (a write action with specific prerequisites), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the commit process, return values, or error conditions. For a tool with 2 parameters and 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no information about the parameters (repo_path and message) beyond what the schema titles imply. It doesn't explain what repo_path should be (e.g., path to git repository) or what message should contain (e.g., commit message). This fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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 'Records changes to the repository' states a purpose but is vague. It uses the verb 'records' which implies committing changes, but doesn't specify what kind of changes (e.g., staged changes) or distinguish it from siblings like git_add (which stages changes) or git_log (which shows commit history). The description is better than a tautology but lacks specificity.

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 to stage changes with git_add first), exclusions, or context for choosing it over other git tools like git_commit_amend. Without such guidance, users might misuse it.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it requires write permissions, if it validates branch names, what happens on conflicts, or error conditions (e.g., if base branch doesn't exist). 'Creates' implies mutation, but no further details are provided.

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 waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and includes key detail about the base branch being optional, making it appropriately sized for its 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?

Given 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter meanings, behavioral context (e.g., side effects, errors), and return values, making it inadequate for a mutation tool with multiple inputs.

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 0%, so the description must compensate but only mentions 'optional base branch' implicitly referring to one parameter. It doesn't explain the semantics of repo_path (e.g., local path vs. URL) or branch_name (format constraints). Baseline is 3 due to minimal compensation for low coverage.

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 ('Creates a new branch') and resource ('branch'), specifying it's from an optional base branch. It distinguishes from siblings like git_checkout or git_merge by focusing on creation, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., git_init also creates something).

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like git_checkout for switching branches or git_init for initializing repos. The description mentions 'optional base branch' but doesn't explain when to specify it versus using default behavior, or prerequisites like needing an existing repo.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'shows differences' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify output format, whether it's destructive, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for what it communicates and is front-loaded with the essential information.

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 tool has 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain parameter meanings, behavioral characteristics, or output format. For a diff tool that likely produces structured comparison data, this leaves the agent with insufficient information to use it effectively.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides no information about the two required parameters (repo_path and target). It doesn't explain what these parameters represent, their expected formats, or how they interact. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 with a specific verb ('shows differences') and resource ('between branches or commits'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like git_diff_branches, git_diff_staged, and git_diff_unstaged, which appear to offer more specific diff functionality.

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. With multiple sibling diff tools available (git_diff_branches, git_diff_staged, git_diff_unstaged), the agent receives no indication about which scenarios warrant this general 'git_diff' versus the more specific variants.

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

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 tool 'shows changes', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it's safe, what format the output is in, or any side effects. This is inadequate for a tool with potential complexity in Git operations.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 Git operations, no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like output format, error conditions, or how it interacts with sibling tools, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides (a single 'repo_path' parameter). With 0% schema description coverage, the description doesn't compensate by explaining what 'repo_path' means or its format. However, since there's only one parameter, the baseline is slightly higher, but it still lacks meaningful semantic context.

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 verb ('shows') and resource ('changes that are staged for commit'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'git_diff' or 'git_diff_unstaged', which would require mentioning it specifically shows staged changes versus unstaged or all changes.

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 like 'git_diff' or 'git_diff_unstaged'. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing a staged change) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and description alone.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool does but doesn't mention output format, whether it shows full diffs or summaries, potential side effects, or error conditions. 'Shows changes' is vague about behavioral characteristics.

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?

Single sentence, zero waste, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place in conveying the essential function.

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 single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately states what it does but lacks details about output format, error handling, or behavioral nuances. It's complete enough for basic understanding but leaves operational questions unanswered.

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 description doesn't mention parameters at all, but with only 1 parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the baseline would be lower. However, the tool name and description strongly imply the repo_path parameter context, providing meaningful semantic context beyond the bare 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 verb 'shows' and the resource 'changes in the working directory' with the specific condition 'that are not yet staged'. It distinguishes from sibling git_diff_staged by specifying unstaged changes, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from git_diff which might show both staged and unstaged changes.

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 implies usage context (when you want to see unstaged changes) but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like git_diff or git_status. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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

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. While 'Initialize' implies a write operation, it doesn't specify what exactly gets created (.git directory, default branch), whether it's idempotent, what happens if the path isn't empty, or what permissions are required. This leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 perfectly concise - a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the essential information and wastes no space.

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 tool that creates a repository (a significant write operation) with no annotations, no output schema, and undocumented parameters, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, parameter details, or expected outcomes, leaving the agent with inadequate context for proper usage.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for the single parameter 'repo_path', the description provides no additional parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'repo_path' represents (e.g., absolute/relative path, must exist, must be empty), leaving the parameter's meaning and constraints undocumented.

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 ('Initialize') and resource ('new Git repository'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its siblings (like git_clone or git_remote_add), which would require 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. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an empty directory), when not to use it (e.g., on existing repositories), or how it relates to sibling tools like git_clone.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Shows the commit logs' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify output format, pagination behavior, error conditions, or any constraints like authentication needs or rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 extremely concise with just three words, front-loading the core purpose without any wasted text. While this brevity may lead to underspecification, it's structurally efficient and earns its place by stating the essential action.

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 tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter usage, output format, behavioral traits, and differentiation from siblings, making it inadequate for an AI agent to reliably invoke the tool without additional context or assumptions.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for the two parameters (repo_path and max_count), the description adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides. It doesn't explain what repo_path expects (e.g., local path, URL), what max_count defaults to or its range, or how they affect the output, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of 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 'Shows the commit logs' clearly states the verb ('shows') and resource ('commit logs'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like git_show or git_status, which might also display commit-related information, leaving some ambiguity about its specific scope.

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. With siblings like git_show (which might show specific commits) and git_status (which shows working tree status), there's no indication of when git_log is preferred, leaving usage context entirely implicit.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Unstages all staged changes' implies a mutation operation but doesn't specify whether it's reversible, what permissions are needed, or if it affects the working directory. It lacks details on error conditions (e.g., no staged changes), side effects, or output format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 ('Unstages all staged changes') that is front-loaded and wastes no words. It directly conveys the core action without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool's complexity (a mutation operation with no annotations, 1 parameter at 0% coverage, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like safety, reversibility, or error handling, nor does it explain the parameter or return values. For a Git reset tool, more context is needed to use it effectively.

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 description adds no meaning beyond the input schema, which has 1 parameter (repo_path) with 0% schema description coverage. It doesn't explain what repo_path represents (e.g., file path, directory, URL), its format, or default behavior. With low coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the parameter poorly documented.

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 'Unstages all staged changes' clearly states the verb ('Unstages') and resource ('all staged changes'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like git_add (which stages changes) and git_commit (which commits staged changes), though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives. The description is specific but could be more precise about scope (e.g., whether it affects the entire repository or specific files).

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 staged changes), exclusions (e.g., not for discarding unstaged changes), or related tools like git_checkout (for discarding changes) or git_reset with modes (e.g., --hard). Usage is implied from the action but lacks explicit context for decision-making.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Shows' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify output format (e.g., raw commit data, patch, or summary), error handling, or any constraints like authentication needs or rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to interpret results.

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 no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse quickly, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 operation with 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover what the output looks like (e.g., commit details, diff, or raw content), how errors are handled, or how it differs from similar tools, leaving the agent with incomplete information for reliable use.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'contents of a commit' but doesn't explain what 'repo_path' and 'revision' mean (e.g., path to repository, commit hash or branch name). Without this, the agent lacks context to use the parameters correctly beyond their basic types.

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 verb ('shows') and resource ('contents of a commit'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like git_log (which shows commit history) or git_diff (which shows differences), leaving some ambiguity about what specific content is displayed.

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. With siblings like git_log, git_diff, and git_status available, there's no indication of whether this shows full commit metadata, file changes, or other details, nor any prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.

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

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. 'Shows the working tree status' implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify what information is included (staged vs unstaged changes, untracked files, branch information), the output format, or any limitations. This is inadequate for a 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 extremely concise at just four words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the essential purpose and doesn't include any unnecessary elaboration or repetition.

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 git status tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'working tree status' includes, how results are presented, or provide any context about the single required parameter. The description should do much more given the complete lack of structured documentation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for the single parameter 'repo_path', the description provides no additional parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'repo_path' should contain (absolute path, relative path, repository identifier) or provide any examples. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 verb ('shows') and resource ('working tree status'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like git_diff_staged or git_diff_unstaged, which also show status information about different aspects of the repository.

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. With multiple git status-related tools available (git_diff_staged, git_diff_unstaged, git_diff), there's no indication of what makes this tool distinct or when it should be preferred over those siblings.

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