git_diff_staged

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the staging scope, which is useful, but does not disclose any other behavior such as output format or behavior when there are no staged changes.

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?

One short sentence with no filler. The core meaning is front-loaded and every word contributes. The description earns its place without 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?

The tool is simple and annotations cover its read-only, non-destructive nature. However, with no output schema, the description does not clarify output format, empty-diff behavior, or the optional context_lines parameter. It is minimally viable but leaves some invocation-relevant 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 0%, so the description needed to compensate, but it does not mention repo_path or context_lines at all. The parameter names and titles are reasonably self-explanatory, but the description itself adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Shows changes that are staged for commit.' The term 'staged' clearly distinguishes this from siblings like git_diff_unstaged and git_status, so an agent can identify the right tool without opening schemas.

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: use this when you want staged changes. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but 'staged for commit' gives an unambiguous selection signal against the sibling tools.

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