Which paths are dirty, and which of them are generated?

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the closing 'Read-only' earns nothing. The description does add real behavioral context beyond the annotations: regenerated manifests/handoffs surface as `generated: true`, and ignore_generated changes what `clean` reports. It leaves the exact shape of `clean` to the output schema, which is acceptable.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior, with no filler. The trailing 'Read-only.' merely restates an annotation and could be dropped without loss.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return fields, and it covers purpose, usage, and the one parameter. The dangling reference to `clean` is never defined, leaving a small but real comprehension gap for a tool the agent is told to use before landing or committing.

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 must carry the single parameter — and it does explain that ignore_generated=True makes `clean` ignore generated entries. However, it is ambiguous whether that flag also drops generated paths from the listed results or only affects the `clean` flag, so the semantic gap is only partly closed.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource ('List every uncommitted path') plus a distinguishing behavior ('each marked when it matches [tool.rrt.git].generated'). It also separates itself from `git status` and, implicitly, from the landing/commit siblings, so an agent knows exactly what this returns.

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?

'Use instead of `git status` before landing or committing' gives an explicit trigger and names the alternative it replaces, which is strong guidance. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or how it relates to sibling tools like rrt_git_land or rrt_git_commits_since, so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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