engi_git_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description entirely shoulders the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the output ('dirty status and changed files') but does not indicate side effects (e.g., no writes), required permissions, or error conditions (e.g., not a Git repo). The minimal description leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.

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 a single short sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the core purpose efficiently. However, it could be slightly expanded to include key behavioral context without losing conciseness, which prevents a perfect score.

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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'dirty status' means, how results are formatted, or how the tool behaves in edge cases (e.g., no repository at root). The agent cannot fully anticipate the tool's output or errors from this description alone.

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 the single parameter 'root', which already explains it as an absolute path to the project root. The description adds no further semantic information beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score 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 uses a clear verb 'Return' and specifies the resource 'Git dirty status and changed files'. It is specific enough to convey the tool's purpose, and the tool name reinforces it. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'engi_project_status', the Git-specific focus provides sufficient distinction for an agent.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'engi_project_status' or 'engi_context_pack'. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., must be a Git repository) or context where this tool is appropriate. The agent lacks information to decide between similar tools.

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