stash_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that results are newest first, that each entry names its originating worktree, and that a stash only applies in the tree it was taken from. These are meaningful behavioral details beyond the name and schema. It does not mention output format or side effects, but the read-only nature is reasonably clear from 'list'.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The primary purpose and ordering are front-loaded, and the important worktree caveat is placed second. Every sentence contributes useful 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?

The description adequately explains the core purpose and an important behavioral constraint, but it leaves include_restored unexplained, and there is no output schema to clarify the return shape. For a simple listing tool this is close to adequate, but the missing parameter semantics prevent it from being fully complete.

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 only 50%, and the description does not compensate for the undocumented include_restored parameter. The cwd parameter is described in the schema and echoed by the worktree context phrase, but include_restored's meaning and effect are left entirely to inference. Since the description adds no parameter-level guidance beyond what the schema already says for one parameter, this is a clear gap.

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 identifies the resource as work interrupted by a shutdown and not yet restored, and specifies that results are ordered newest first. It strongly implies a list operation even though it does not begin with an explicit verb, and it distinguishes this from stash_restore by focusing on listing, not restoring.

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 gives useful context for when to use the tool: when you need to see shutdown-interrupted work that has not yet been restored. It does not explicitly name stash_restore as the alternative, but the 'not yet restored' framing and sibling tool list make the intended usage clear. No exclusion or conditional guidance is given.

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