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 of safety disclosure. The explicit 'read-only' parenthetical covers the only meaningful behavioral trait for a zero-parameter status command. There are no auth, rate-limit, or destruction concerns to disclose.

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 a short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant wording. Every word adds semantic value.

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 parameterless read-only command backed by an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It could explicitly situate itself relative to the sibling tools, but nothing needed for a correct invocation is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema is already complete and there is nothing for the description to add. The baseline of 4 for parameterless tools applies.

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 verb ('Show') and a specific resource ('working tree status'), making the tool's target unmistakable. The parenthetical 'read-only' reinforces the nature of the operation. It is clearly distinct from the sibling git tools.

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 guidance about when to use git_status versus git_diff, git_log, or git_show. The only context is implicit in the resource name, and no decision criteria or exclusions are provided.

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