Git Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint false. The description adds that it is 'Read-only' and describes the return JSON structure (branch, ahead, behind, etc.), adding value beyond annotations.

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 concise, using bullet points for args and return. Every sentence adds value, with no wasted words.

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?

Given the simple one-parameter tool, annotations, and full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, usage, and exact return format. It even includes an extra feature (ticket ID parsing).

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?

The only parameter (repo_path) is fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The tool description repeats the schema's info almost verbatim, adding minimal additional meaning.

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 specifies the tool reports branch, ahead/behind counts, and file statuses. It also mentions parsing ticket IDs from branch names. This distinguishes it from siblings like git_log_for_pr and git_staged_diff.

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 explicitly states 'Use to orient before committing or opening a PR, and to parse a ticket id', providing clear context. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance but is otherwise strong.

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