Знімок стану всіх git-репозиторіїв у теці

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It explains that the tool scans, checks CI status, and returns attention-requiring repos, implying read-only network polling. However, it does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, error behavior, or explicitly confirm that it makes no mutations.

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?

Three concise, purposeful sentences. The main function is front-loaded, the manual-workflow replacement is stated, and the multi-root usage tip is separated clearly. No redundant or filler content.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core behavior, what counts as attention-worthy, the default root, and the multi-root option. It does not specify the exact return shape or network/auth caveats, but it gives an agent enough to decide when and how to invoke the 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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all 5 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a useful default (~/Projects) and emphasizes roots-vs-root use, but much of that is already reflected in the schema descriptions.

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 precise verb and resource: it scans all git repositories under a root and returns which ones need attention (uncommitted changes, unpublished commits, failed/unfinished CI). This clearly differentiates it from the sibling tools like check_docs or write_doc through its batch git-status purpose.

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 frames the tool as replacing a manual loop of git status + gh run list, which gives clear usage context. It also gives conditional guidance for the root vs roots parameters. It does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool, but the context is clear enough for selection.

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