git_get_context

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

Despite no annotations, the description transparently lists all behavioral aspects: what output is returned (branch, ahead/behind, commits, status, diff summary, Jira keys) and how includeDiff modifies behavior. It doesn't mention potential performance implications or prerequisites like a valid git repo, but those are implied.

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 concise, front-loading the purpose with 'Start here' and listing key outputs in a single sentence. The second sentence on includeDiff is useful. It is slightly dense but efficient with no wasted words.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the main outputs and the optional diff inclusion. It does not mention return format or error cases, but the information provided is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema—it confirms includeDiff fetches the full uncommitted diff, but repoPath and commitLimit are not elaborated beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states the tool's purpose: providing comprehensive git context including branch info, upstream status, recent commits, and Jira keys. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly listing the components and positioning itself as a starting point, unlike git_get_diff which is just for diffs.

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 strongly suggests using this tool 'for any coding or review task', giving clear context. It hints at when to use includeDiff but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_dev_context or git_get_diff, which would warrant a 5.

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