git_add

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

No annotations exist, and the description only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits like handling of non-existent files, overwriting behavior, or recursive staging. The minimal disclosure leaves the agent uninformed about 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 sentence with zero waste. Every word is necessary and contributes to clarity, making it highly concise and efficiently front-loaded.

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 simple staging tool, the description is adequate but lacks context about the staging process, such as that it is a prerequisite for git_commit or that it can be used to stage all changes with '.'. No output schema exists, but the tool's return value is implied.

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%, with both parameters having clear descriptions in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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 'Add file contents to the index' clearly states the action (add) and the resource (file contents to the index), which is a specific git staging operation. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like git_commit (committing staged changes) and git_status (viewing state).

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 staging files before committing, but it does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives, such as git_commit or git_checkout. No guidance on when not to use or prerequisites is provided.

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