git_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool does not invoke a shell, which is a meaningful execution trait, and specifies the short-format status output. It does not detail error behavior, but git status is a standard read-only operation and the command itself implies its 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence states the action, scope, and a key behavioral distinction with no wasted words. It is concise without losing necessary information.

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 one-parameter read-only Git status tool, the description plus schema is nearly sufficient for correct invocation. It lacks explicit return-format details and error handling, but '--short' already communicates the expected output style and the schema supplies the only required input.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must provide parameter meaning. It supplies the semantic anchor 'inside a registered project,' which maps to projectId, but it does not explicitly state that projectId is the identifier of the registered project or explain the UUID constraint. With only one parameter, the mapping is still inferable.

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 names a specific command and resource: 'Run git status --short inside a registered project.' This clearly states what the tool does and distinguishes it from related tools like git_diff or process_run.

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?

It gives clear usage context: the command must run inside a registered project, and the tool is specifically a shell-free way to get git status. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for an agent to choose it over running a shell command.

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