sc_git

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure, but it only names the domain. It omits side effects, permissions, return formats, or operational impact, leaving the agent completely uninformed about what invoking this tool entails.

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 extremely short, but it is under-specified rather than concisely informative. It lacks actionable detail and provides only a vague phrase that does not justify its brevity.

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 tool has 4 parameters including nested objects and no output schema, indicating potential complexity. Yet the description is a single vague phrase with no explanation of how to form git arguments, what flags do, how evidence is used, or what output to expect. This is completely inadequate.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter meaning; the schema's own parameter descriptions are generic (e.g., 'Command arguments and flags'), and the description does not clarify how to use them in practice.

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 'Git operations - Advanced git workflows' only restates the tool name at a categorical level without specifying a concrete action or resource. It does not indicate which particular git operations are supported or how it differs from other workflow tools.

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 usage context is provided. The description neither explains when to use sc_git over sibling tools nor mentions any prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools.

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