smart_git_push

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

The description mentions security-focused behavior and deployment metrics tracking, but does not detail side effects, authentication needs, or what happens on failure/security blocks. With no annotations, this is insufficient for full transparency.

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 short (two sentences), but the second sentence is more of an instruction than a description, slightly reducing clarity. Overall efficient, but could be improved.

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 is minimal for a tool with 7 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema. It lacks details on return values, error handling, and behavior under different configurations.

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 some context (e.g., credential detection) but does not significantly enhance understanding of individual parameters beyond the schema descriptions.

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 performs a git push with security features like credential detection and file filtering. It distinguishes from siblings which are mostly about ADRs, research, and other non-git operations.

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 implies tests should be run before using this tool ('Tests should be run by calling AI and results provided'), but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or when not to use it. No direct comparison to siblings.

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