get_project_status

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool reads Git status, without explaining what the status includes, whether the project must already exist, or what happens if the project is invalid or the path is incorrect.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately concise.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter), the description lacks crucial contextual details such as the return value format, the exact meaning of 'project' in relation to the workspace root, and error behaviors. It is minimally viable but leaves significant gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate by explaining the 'project' parameter. It merely refers to 'one project', leaving unclear whether this is a name, path, or ID, and how it relates to the configured workspace root.

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 ('Read') and resource ('Git status'), and scopes it to 'one project under the configured workspace root', clearly distinguishing it from any sibling tool focused on other operations. It is unambiguous and has a precise scope.

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 implies a use case but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions no prerequisites, no exclusions, and does not reference related tools such as run_project_verification.

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