check_git_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the informational outputs but does not explicitly state that the tool is non-destructive, whether it performs network fetches to detect 'available updates', or any side effects. 'Check' implies read-only but leaves key behavioral aspects unstated.

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 two sentences with zero fluff. The action and target resource are front-loaded, followed by the concrete outputs. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it names the outputs (branch, uncommitted changes, available updates) that an agent would need. The absence of explicit statements about network usage or non-mutating behavior leaves a small gap, but overall it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 single 'repo' parameter is fully documented in the schema with an enum (knowledge-base, mcp-server, both) and a clear description including the default. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description need not add more; the tool description's mention of the two repositories aligns with the enum values.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Check Git status of repositories (knowledge base and/or MCP server)'. It enumerates the exact outputs shown (current branch, uncommitted changes, available updates), making it clearly distinct from sibling tools like pull_git_updates or sync_repositories, which imply mutating operations.

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 read-only inspection use case is implied through 'Check' and 'Shows', and the tool's outputs suggest checking before updating. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this over siblings like pull_git_updates or sync_repositories, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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