Show config git status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and non-open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior beyond that: the failure mode ('raises RuntimeError when gitpython is not installed or no git repo exists yet at HA_CONFIG_PATH') and the required prerequisite tool.

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?

Well front-loaded: purpose first, then Use when / Returns / Errors as scannable labels. Minor leakage of internal implementation detail ('calls _repo()', 'repo.index.diff', 'repo.untracked_files') that an agent invoking the tool does not need.

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?

Complete for a zero-parameter read-only status tool: trigger context, prerequisite, and error path are all stated, and an output schema already exists so return values need not be restated. The restatement of the return dict is mildly redundant rather than a completeness gap.

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 and the input schema is a closed empty object, so there is no parameter semantics to convey; per the rubric this is a baseline 4. The description correctly adds no invented argument detail.

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 and resource ('Show git status of the HA config directory') and immediately enumerates what it reports (branch, staged/modified/untracked, dirty flag), which cleanly separates it from git_git_diff and git_git_log. However, it never names a sibling it is not, so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 'Use when: checking what changed in /config before committing or writing a file' line gives a concrete trigger context. It also surfaces a prerequisite ('run git_git_init_config first'), but names no exclusion or alternative (e.g., when to prefer git_git_diff for line-level detail).

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