git_push

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'update' but does not disclose behavioral traits like whether it is destructive, requires authentication, or can resolve conflicts. The 'force' parameter implies possible destructive behavior, but the description does not explain implications.

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, making it concise. It gets to the point quickly, though it could be structured to highlight the primary action more clearly. It is not verbose, earning a high score for conciseness.

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 5 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not cover return values, error conditions (e.g., rejected push), or context like when force push is needed. The description is incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a description (e.g., 'Force push'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, baseline is 3, and there is no extra value added, so score remains 3.

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 'Update remote refs along with associated objects' indicates the action, but it is somewhat technical and may not immediately convey that it pushes commits to a remote repository. The tool name 'git_push' helps clarify the purpose. It distinguishes from siblings like 'git_pull' or 'git_clone', but the description lacks explicit phrasing like 'push local commits to remote'.

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. There is no mention of when not to use it, such as for pulling or cloning. The description does not help the agent decide between this and sibling tools like 'git_pull' or 'git_commit'.

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