get_source_control_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description still adds meaningful context beyond that: it never establishes a connection and never mutates settings, and it names the exact payload fields returned. It does not discuss failure modes (e.g., no provider configured).

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?

Front-loaded and short — the scoping statement comes before the return shape. Minor redundancy: the field list ('provider name, whether revision control is enabled ... status_text') is restated almost verbatim in the Returns line, which slightly dilutes the economy.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the full burden and does: it states the source of the data, the scope limitation, the read-only guarantee, and the exact return keys. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing further to document. The description correctly spends no space on parameter syntax.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Report the editor revision-control connection') and explicitly bounds the scope by negating what it does not cover ('Says nothing about individual files or their checkout state'). An agent can tell this apart from any file-level status tool without opening a schema.

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?

Clearly frames the context: read-only, never connects, never changes settings — which tells the agent this is a safe inspection call and not a configuration step. It stops short of naming an alternative tool for actually changing revision-control settings, so it lacks explicit sibling routing.

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