git_overview

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

Discloses specific detection criteria (uncommitted changes, no remote, 90-day stale threshold), which is useful. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and doesn't state whether the scan is read-only, whether it performs network I/O, or what the output looks like.

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?

Single, front-loaded, 16-word sentence that wastes no words. Every element ('all projects', 'git state', the three checks) earns its place.

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?

Covers what the tool checks, which is essential, but omits what it returns (list, summary, flags) and any side effects. Given no output schema or annotations, this is a meaningful gap for a scan-type tool.

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?

Tool has zero parameters, so the empty schema is fully covered. Description adds no parameter semantics needed; baseline of 4 for 0-param tools 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?

Clear verb 'scan' + resource 'all projects' with specific git states listed (uncommitted changes, no remote, stale repos). However, it doesn't differentiate itself from sibling 'stale_projects', which overlaps with the 'stale repos' check.

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?

Implies a cross-project overview but never states when to use this over siblings like 'stale_projects' or 'list_projects'. No explicit exclusions or alternatives, leaving usage to inference.

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