Mooring

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

With no annotations provided, the description fails to disclose behavioral specifics: it doesn't explain that 'pop' removes the stash after applying while 'apply' preserves it, nor that 'message' is only relevant for 'push'. It also omits mutation/safety warnings (e.g., potential for merge conflicts during pop/apply).

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?

Uses a clear header sentence followed by an Args block. While the Args format is slightly informal/docstring-like, it is well-structured and every line conveys necessary information without redundancy.

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?

Covers basic operation listing but lacks crucial details for a multi-modal tool: the specific effects of each action (especially pop vs apply) and parameter constraints (message only used for push). Output schema exists so return values don't need description, but operational semantics are under-specified.

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?

Compensates effectively for 0% schema description coverage by documenting all three parameters in the Args block, including valid values for 'action' and the optional nature of 'message'. It correctly notes the default 'list' behavior.

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?

Clearly identifies the tool manages git stash operations and lists the four specific supported actions (list, push, pop, apply). Distinguishes sufficiently from sibling repo_* tools by focusing on the stash-specific workflow, though it could explicitly mention 'Git' for absolute clarity.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use stash versus commit or other workflows, nor does it explain the critical difference between destructive (pop) and non-destructive (apply) operations. No 'when not to use' or prerequisite context is given.

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