sc_mark_for_add

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

With no annotations available, the description must fully disclose behavior, but it only states the action without side effects, permissions, or effects on existing files. It does not clarify whether this stages files temporarily, requires prior creation, or how it interacts with other source control 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 concise sentence with no redundant words, which is efficient. However, it is almost too terse, lacking any elaboration that could aid the agent. Still, it scores high on conciseness because there is no fluff.

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?

With no annotations, the description must compensate, but it only states the basic action. It does not mention when to use it (e.g., for untracked files before commit), potential side effects (adds to index), or any behaviors like error handling. Given a one-parameter tool, this is minimal but insufficient for an agent to fully understand implications.

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 tool description adds no detail beyond the schema's parameter description 'File paths to mark for add'. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline score of 3 applies, but the description does not enhance understanding of the paths parameter (e.g., format, relative vs absolute, directories).

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 'mark' with a clear object 'new file(s)' and specifies the resource 'source control'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like sc_checkout or sc_revert, as it uniquely indicates staging new files for addition.

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 like sc_checkout or sc_checkin. It does not mention explicit conditions or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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