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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false (indicating mutation), and the description adds that this modifies 'the git staging area' - useful context about what gets changed. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral details like whether this is idempotent, what happens with invalid pathspecs, or if there are side effects beyond staging.

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 a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with only two parameters.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the basic operation but lacks important context about what happens after staging (e.g., need to commit), error conditions, or typical usage patterns. The annotations provide some safety context but more behavioral detail would be helpful.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional semantic context about parameters beyond what's in the schema descriptions, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 action ('Add files') and target ('to the git staging area'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'commit' or 'reset' which also interact with the staging area, preventing a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'commit' (which moves staged changes to repository) or 'reset' (which can unstage changes). There's no mention of prerequisites, typical workflow context, or exclusions.

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

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, implying this is a mutation tool, which aligns with the description's verbs ('switch', 'restore') that suggest state changes. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond annotations—it hints at destructive potential ('restore' implies overwriting files) but doesn't detail risks like data loss from 'force' or 'merge' parameters, rate limits, or authentication needs. With annotations covering the mutation aspect, this earns a baseline score for adding some value.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every word earns its place by concisely covering the tool's main actions, making it easy for an agent to parse and understand quickly. There's no redundancy or fluff, adhering perfectly to conciseness standards.

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 tool's complexity (11 parameters, mutation indicated by annotations) and lack of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It states what the tool does but doesn't address behavioral nuances like error conditions, side effects (e.g., working tree changes), or return values. With annotations providing some context (readOnlyHint=false), it meets a basic threshold but leaves gaps for safe and effective use by an agent.

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%, with each parameter well-documented in the input schema (e.g., 'force' explains it throws away local modifications). The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, such as clarifying interactions between parameters like 'createBranch' and 'target'. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 with specific verbs ('switch', 'restore') and resources ('branches', 'commits', 'working tree files'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create-branch' or 'reset', which also involve branch/commit operations, leaving some ambiguity about when this specific tool should be chosen over alternatives.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create-branch' (for creating branches without switching), 'reset' (for restoring files without switching), or 'log' (for inspecting commits without detaching). There's no mention of prerequisites, typical workflows, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose alone.

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

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (implying mutation), which aligns with the description's 'commit' action. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond annotations—it doesn't mention that this creates a permanent record, may trigger hooks, or affects repository history. With annotations covering the mutation aspect, the description provides basic but insufficient additional behavioral insight.

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 a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately comprehensible without unnecessary elaboration.

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 complex mutation tool with 25 parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after committing (e.g., creates a commit object, updates HEAD), potential side effects, or error conditions. The high parameter count and mutation nature demand more contextual information than provided.

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 all 25 parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the high-level concept of 'staged changes.' This meets the baseline for high schema coverage, but doesn't enhance understanding of parameter interactions or use cases.

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 action ('commit') and resource ('staged changes to the git repository'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'add' or 'reset', but the verb+resource combination is specific enough for basic understanding.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add' (which stages changes) or 'reset' (which unstages changes). There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing staged changes) or contextual advice about when commit is appropriate versus other git operations.

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

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, consistent with the 'create' action. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond annotations—it mentions the optional starting point but doesn't cover error conditions, permissions needed, or what happens if the branch already exists (though 'force' parameter hints at this).

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Create a new git branch') and adds only essential optional detail. There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy.

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 mutation nature (readOnlyHint=false) and lack of output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks details on return values, error handling, or integration with sibling tools. It covers the basic purpose but leaves gaps for effective agent use.

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 schema fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or constraints, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 verb ('Create') and resource ('new git branch') with optional starting point specification. It distinguishes from siblings like 'checkout' or 'reset' by focusing on branch creation, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'checkout' for switching branches or 'init' for repository setup. It mentions the optional starting point but offers no context about prerequisites or typical workflows.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide—it doesn't mention output format, pagination, rate limits, or authentication needs. With annotations covering safety, this meets baseline expectations but adds minimal extra value.

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 concise—a single, clear sentence that front-loads the core purpose without any wasted words. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying what the tool does, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 tool's moderate complexity (8 parameters, no output schema) and rich schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose but lacks context on output format, error handling, or integration with siblings. With annotations covering read-only safety, it meets basic needs but could be more complete for effective agent use.

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%, meaning all parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the tool compares two states (from/to). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation effectively.

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 with the verb 'Show' and resource 'differences between commits, branches, files', making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'log' (which shows commit history) or 'status' (which shows working directory state), missing full sibling distinction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose 'diff' over 'log' for viewing changes, 'status' for current state, or other siblings, leaving the agent without contextual usage instructions.

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

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, correctly aligning with the description's 'Initialize' action that creates something new. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond annotations—it implies creation but doesn't detail what happens (e.g., creates .git directory, sets up initial structure) or mention side effects like overwriting existing repos. With annotations covering the mutation aspect, this is adequate but not rich.

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 a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly efficient and easy to parse at a glance.

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 tool with 4 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It states the action but lacks context on usage scenarios, prerequisites, or behavioral details like error cases. Given the structured data handles parameters well, the description is adequate but leaves gaps in practical guidance.

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%, with all parameters well-documented in the schema itself (e.g., 'bare' as 'Create a bare repository'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline for high coverage without compensating value.

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 verb ('Initialize') and resource ('new Git repository'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create-branch' or explain how this foundational operation differs from other repository setup tools, which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing a directory path), when not to use it (e.g., on existing repositories), or how it relates to sibling tools like 'create-branch' for repository setup workflows.

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

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, which the description aligns with by using 'View' (a read operation). The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this, as it doesn't detail output format, pagination, or error handling. With annotations covering the safety aspect, the description provides basic but insufficient additional 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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 20 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It adequately conveys the basic purpose but lacks details on output format, error cases, or usage scenarios, which are important for a tool with many filtering options. Annotations help with safety, but more context is needed for full completeness.

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 schema fully documents all 20 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying a general focus on commit history. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding of parameter interactions or defaults.

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 verb ('View') and resource ('commit history and log information from a git repository'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'show' or 'status', which might also display repository information, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'show' or 'status' from the sibling list. It lacks any context about prerequisites, such as needing an initialized repository, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the purpose statement.

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

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, which aligns with the description's implication of a mutation operation ('reset'). The description adds value by specifying the three reset modes (soft, mixed, hard), which provides behavioral context beyond annotations. However, it doesn't detail potential side effects like data loss in 'hard' mode or authentication needs, so it's not fully transparent.

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 concise with a single sentence that front-loads the core action ('reset repository state') and efficiently lists the modes. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse without unnecessary elaboration.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and 4 parameters, the description is minimal. It covers the basic action and modes but lacks details on return values, error conditions, or integration with sibling tools. Given the complexity and annotation coverage, it's adequate but has clear gaps in completeness.

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%, with all parameters well-documented in the schema itself. The description mentions the modes (soft, mixed, hard) which corresponds to the 'mode' parameter, but adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 verb ('reset') and resource ('repository state'), and specifies the three modes (soft, mixed, hard) which gives specific action details. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'checkout' or 'revert' that might also affect repository state, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'checkout' or 'revert' among the sibling tools. It mentions the modes but doesn't explain when each mode is appropriate or what prerequisites might be needed, leaving the agent without contextual usage direction.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this - it mentions 'displaying' but doesn't elaborate on output format, pagination, or error conditions. With annotations covering the safety profile, this meets baseline expectations without adding significant value.

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 perfectly concise - a single sentence that immediately communicates the core functionality without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the essential information and doesn't include unnecessary elaboration or repetition.

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 tool's moderate complexity (7 parameters, Git operations) and the absence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It identifies what the tool does but lacks information about return values, error conditions, or how it fits within the broader Git workflow. The annotations help but don't fully compensate for these gaps.

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 all parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema descriptions - it doesn't explain parameter interactions, default behaviors, or usage patterns. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 verb ('Display') and resource ('commit details and changes'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'diff' or 'log' which also show commit-related information, preventing a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'diff' (for comparing changes) or 'log' (for viewing commit history). There's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent with insufficient context for tool selection.

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

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which the description aligns with by using 'Get' (a read operation). The description doesn't add significant behavioral context beyond what annotations provide - it doesn't mention output format, performance characteristics, or error conditions. However, it doesn't contradict the annotations either.

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 a single, efficient sentence that immediately communicates the core function. There's zero wasted verbiage - every word earns its place. It's perfectly front-loaded with the essential information.

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 read-only tool with excellent schema coverage (100%) and clear annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, without an output schema, the description doesn't help the agent understand what the status output looks like or what information it contains. The description could better prepare the agent for interpreting results.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema thoroughly documents all 14 parameters. The description adds no parameter information beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the comprehensive schema coverage. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('current git repository status'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'log' or 'diff' which also provide repository information, but it's specific enough to understand the core function.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when this tool is appropriate compared to siblings like 'log' (history) or 'diff' (changes), nor does it provide any context about prerequisites or typical use cases.

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