coding_git_status

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

Annotations mark destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds no explanation of side effects, state changes, or safety implications. The routing note adds scope/auth context but not behavioral transparency. The description does not explicitly contradict the annotations, but the destructive flag on a git_status action is surprising and unexplained.

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, front-loaded with the action statement, and has a clean Args section. It contains no filler or redundancy, though it is arguably under-specified rather than efficiently detailed.

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?

Even with an output schema present, the description omits what the git_status action returns, when to invoke it, and what structured inputs should contain. The generic dispatcher framing does not give an agent enough confidence to construct a correct call beyond passing arbitrary message text. For a tool with 0% schema coverage and unexplained destructive annotations, this is incomplete.

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 for missing parameter documentation. It provides only generic definitions: message is a 'Free-text objective' and inputs is an 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. No git_status-specific argument details, expected keys, or JSON format are given, leaving the agent with minimal guidance.

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: 'Run the coding domain agent action `git_status`', which clearly identifies the tool's purpose. It adds routing context about the domain-agent dispatcher, but it never explains what git_status actually does or how it differs from sibling coding_* tools beyond the action name.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like coding_run_command or coding_get_context. The only contextual sentence describes routing under JWT, tenant, and company scope, which is not usage guidance. An agent must infer selection entirely from the tool name.

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