crosspad_repo_status

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already covers the safety profile. The description adds value by disclosing the scope (ALL detected repos), the monorepo layout detail (5-repo), and what the reported fields are. It correctly presents this as an aggregation tool without overclaiming write behavior.

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?

Two sentences, tightly packed. The key main-verb action and scope are front-loaded. Could arguably be a touch shorter but every sentence earns its place—the first establishes the action, the second gives the preference directive.

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 an output schema exists (which covers return values), zero params, and a readOnly annotation, the description covers what an agent needs: what it does, what it returns conceptually, and when to prefer it. The monorepo layout context is valuable. Minor gap is not describing submodule sync state semantics more precisely.

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 has zero parameters, so there's no parameter description to add. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on behavior since schema has nothing to document at 100% coverage.

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?

Clear specific verb+resource: reports git status across all CrossPad repos. Explicitly enumerates what's returned (branch, HEAD, dirty files, submodule sync state) and differentiates from alternatives by highlighting the 5-repo monorepo layout handling in one call.

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?

Explicitly instructs to PREFER this tool over running `git status` per repo, providing an explicit when-to-use directive and naming the alternative it replaces. This is a clear usage guideline with a specific alternative context.

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