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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior fully. It only mentions 'best-effort' and handles ignore/negate, but omits return format, error behavior, or limitations (e.g., partial rule support).

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—two short sentences. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids unnecessary words. Every sentence is informative.

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?

Despite simple inputs, no output schema exists, so the description should indicate the return type (e.g., boolean, list of matches). It does not. The 'best-effort' hint is vague. Description is incomplete for full agent understanding.

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 0% (no descriptions in schema). The description names 'paths' and 'gitignore' but offers no detail on format (e.g., gitignore string as lines, paths relative paths). Baseline is low; description adds minimal 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 tool matches paths against .gitignore rules, specifying 'ignore / negate' which adds nuance. However, it does not differentiate from sibling 'gitignore_check', leaving ambiguity about when to use which.

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 includes a 'When:' clause but only says 'Test paths against .gitignore rules (best-effort).' It provides no guidance on when not to use, what alternatives exist (e.g., gitignore_check), or any prerequisites.

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