git_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Shows the working tree status' implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify what information is included (staged vs unstaged changes, untracked files, branch information), the output format, or any limitations. This is inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise at just four words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the essential purpose and doesn't include any unnecessary elaboration or repetition.

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 git status tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'working tree status' includes, how results are presented, or provide any context about the single required parameter. The description should do much more given the complete lack of structured documentation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for the single parameter 'repo_path', the description provides no additional parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'repo_path' should contain (absolute path, relative path, repository identifier) or provide any examples. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 clearly states the verb ('shows') and resource ('working tree status'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like git_diff_staged or git_diff_unstaged, which also show status information about different aspects of the repository.

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. With multiple git status-related tools available (git_diff_staged, git_diff_unstaged, git_diff), there's no indication of what makes this tool distinct or when it should be preferred over those siblings.

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