coding_git_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains routing through the platform's dispatcher with JWT, tenant, and company scope, which adds some transparency. However, it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or requires specific permissions. The term 'git_status' implies a read operation, but not stated explicitly.

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 short but includes some redundant phrasing (e.g., 'Routes through...'). It front-loads the core action but could be more concise. Every sentence earns its place, though the parameter descriptions could be integrated more efficiently.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, return values need not be explained. However, the description does not clarify the purpose of the parameters or the expected behavior of the git_status action. For a tool that wraps a domain action, more context (e.g., 'shows current git status such as staged, unstaged, and untracked files') would be valuable. The tool name provides some completeness, but the description could be more helpful.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It describes 'message' as 'Free-text objective for the action' and 'inputs' as 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs for the action.' This adds minimal meaning; 'free-text objective' is vague and does not clarify what the objective should be. The description partially compensates but is insufficient.

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 'Run the coding domain agent action git_status', which clearly specifies the verb and resource. The name itself implies checking git status, but the description could be more explicit about the actual effect (e.g., 'show current repository status'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by being specific to git status.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when not to use it or contrast with other coding tools like coding_run_command or coding_read_code. The description lacks context for appropriate invocation.

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