status

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate the safety profile. It adds real context beyond them by showing that this is a composite aggregation across the index, memory graph, and git working tree, so the agent knows one call replaces many. It does not address staleness, cost, or whether reading git state affects anything, which keeps it below 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, front-loaded with the purpose, then the payload, then the usage trigger. No redundant or filler text.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description's enumeration of returned data carries the return-value burden well. Parameters are covered at 100% in the schema, and the annotations cover safety, so nothing an agent needs to call the tool correctly is missing.

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%, and both parameters (root, format) are already documented in the schema, including the nuanced guidance for linked worktrees and subagents. The description adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb ("Returns") and enumerates the exact resources: file counts, index state, memory graph stats, git branch, uncommitted changes, recent commits. That enumeration clearly separates it from siblings such as efficiency_report or reindex, which cover subsets of these areas.

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?

"One call for complete situational awareness at the start of a session" gives a clear trigger context for calling it. It does not name a when-not condition or point to alternatives, so it falls short of the explicit routing that a 5 requires.

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