smart_git_push

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions security features like credential detection and file filtering, and implies behavior around test results (required, may block push). However, it does not detail what happens on credential detection, how file filtering works, or the exact push workflow (e.g., remote interaction). The description partially discloses behavior but leaves gaps.

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 very concise with two sentences. The first sentence packs key features efficiently, and the second provides a critical usage note. No unnecessary 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?

Given the complexity of 7 parameters and a nested testResults object, the description is somewhat lacking. It does not explain return values (no output schema) or the overall workflow (e.g., staging files, remote push). The requirement to provide test results is mentioned but not fully explained. The description is adequate but not thorough.

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, only noting that test results are required. It does not elaborate on branch, message, or other parameters beyond what the schema 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 function as a git push with security features (credential detection, file filtering, deployment metrics). The verb 'push' and resource 'git' are specific, and the description distinguishes it from sibling tools by highlighting the security and AI-driven aspects.

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 provides clear context: it is used for pushing code with security checks and requires test results. It implies tests should be run beforehand, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. However, given no sibling git push tool, the guidance is adequate.

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