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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait: it does not return object IDs, messages, paths, or contents, implying a read-only counting operation. This adds transparency beyond the schema. However, it does not describe the output format or any potential side effects, though the absence of annotations raises the bar slightly.

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 concise sentence that is well-structured, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no redundant words or filler.

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 with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and the main behavioral constraint. It could be more explicit about what 'recovery hints' includes, but the overall information is sufficient for basic selection.

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 schema fully documents the only parameter 'cwd' with a description including that no network access is used. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'Count' and identifies the resource as 'unreachable Git object types and recovery hints', and explicitly states what is excluded (object IDs, messages, paths, contents), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like reflog_signals and stash_signals.

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 when summary counts of unreachable objects are needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. No reference to sibling tools is made, though the 'without returning...' clause hints at use cases where detailed data is not required.

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 the transparency burden. It discloses the local-only scope and that no network access is used (via the cwd parameter description), and explicitly states what data is omitted from the result. This goes beyond a bare restatement, though it does not detail output format or potential side effects.

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, front-loaded sentence: it leads with the verb and resource, then specifies constraints. Every clause adds value, with no filler or duplication of schema 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?

For a tool with one parameter, no output schema, and simple summarization behavior, the description provides enough context about scope, input, and output nature (count and age bucket). It does not specify the exact return structure, but the phrase 'by count and age bucket' is sufficiently clear for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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% for the single parameter 'cwd', including a meaningful description ('Local Git repository path; no network access is used'). The tool description adds no further parameter-level detail, but the schema already provides the necessary semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Summarize') and resource ('local reflog activity'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like recovery_signals and stash_signals. The explicit exclusion list (no ref names, hashes, subjects, paths, remotes) further sharpens the purpose.

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?

Clear context is given: use this when you need a high-level summary of local reflog activity grouped by count and age. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the sibling names imply distinct git data sources (recovery, stash), making the intended scope evident.

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 the full burden. It discloses that the tool only returns aggregate age buckets and counts, and explicitly states that no stash messages, refs, hashes, or paths are returned. This clarifies the read-only, non-revealing nature, though it does not mention failure modes or edge cases like an empty stash.

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, front-loaded sentence that uses no filler words. It efficiently conveys the action, scope, and limitations in a compact format.

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 simplicity (one optional parameter) and the absence of an output schema, the description is complete enough. It tells the agent exactly what will be returned (age buckets and count) and what will not be included, leaving no critical gaps.

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 sole parameter cwd is fully documented in the schema with 'Local Git repository path; no network access is used.' The description itself adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already covers, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Summarize local stash age buckets and count' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself by explicitly listing what it does not return (messages, refs, hashes, paths), setting it apart from sibling tools that might provide more detail.

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 for getting a high-level stash summary, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over reflog_signals or recovery_signals. No direct guidance on exclusions or alternative scenarios is provided.

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