status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The word 'Return' implies a read-only operation, and 'tiny' suggests a concise summary, but it does not explicitly state that it makes no modifications, nor does it mention what happens if the current directory is not a git repository. This is adequate but leaves some gaps.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and includes a usage direction. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, when to use it, and hints at output content ('branch and dirty-file checks'). It does not detail the exact output format or edge cases, but that is acceptable given the tool's low complexity.

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 schema already provides full coverage for the single parameter ('limit' with description and default). The description does not add any additional parameter semantics, which is acceptable given the 100% schema coverage. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Return') and a specific resource ('tiny git worktree status summary') with a defined scope ('current repository'). It also distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly saying 'for branch and dirty-file checks instead of reading broader change context', which differentiates it from 'changes'.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool ('for branch and dirty-file checks') and an explicit exclusion ('instead of reading broader change context'). However, it does not name the alternative sibling tool (e.g., 'changes') directly, so it falls just short of full explicit alternative guidance.

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