Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral constraint (typed operations only, no arbitrary host commands), but says nothing about what status reports, how job_id factors in, or whether it polls or blocks.

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 short sentences are front-loaded and free of padding, so nothing is wasteful. However, the first sentence is pure tautology and the second addresses the family rather than the tool, so the brevity reflects under-specification rather than economy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the description still omits the one thing an agent needs: that this tool surfaces status/progress of a background rm_git job (job_id required for action='status'). With 11 parameters referencing multiple actions, the multiplexed nature of the tool is left entirely unexplained.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all 11 parameters including job_id and summary are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 opens by restating the name/title ("Status (rm_git)") without naming a specific verb or resource, so it never says what status actually does (e.g., report progress of a background rm_git job). The second sentence describes the tool family's policy, not this tool's purpose, so an agent cannot distinguish it from rm_git_raw or rm_git_cancel.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no sibling is named as an alternative. The only hint, that "arbitrary host commands are prohibited," implies a boundary with rm_git_raw but never states that rm_git_raw is the tool to use instead.

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