git_clone

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description adds non-obvious context the annotations can't: the clone target is VBS_WORKSPACE_DIR specifically so list_repos can find it, plus auth handling guidance (credentials via VBSTUDIO_GIT_USERNAME/TOKEN rather than the URL). It says nothing about behavior when destName already exists, which keeps it off a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, each load-bearing: purpose, usage context, auth constraint. The purpose sentence leads, and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 2-parameter tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers destination, discoverability, and credentials — enough to call it safely. The only gap is failure/existing-directory behavior, which an agent would reasonably want to know.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description earns an extra point by constraining remoteUrl semantics ('do not embed credentials') and confirming destName is resolved relative to VBS_WORKSPACE_DIR. That is real added meaning, not restatement.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Clone a git remote') and immediately ties the outcome to a named sibling ('discoverable by list_repos'), which separates it from git_pull/git_status/git_commit. An agent knows exactly what this tool produces without opening the schema.

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?

'Used by /link's VBS setup flow' gives concrete context for when this tool fires, and the naming of list_repos implies the follow-on step. It does not state exclusions (e.g. when to prefer git_pull on an existing repo), so it stops short of a full when/when-not pair.

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