Стан репозиторію

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. The fragment implies a read-only inspection by enumerating status fields, but it does not explicitly state that the tool makes no changes, nor does it mention error behavior or whether a valid git repository is required.

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 single compact phrase containing only the three relevant data categories: branch, last commit, and uncommitted changes. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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 parameterless read-only status tool, the description covers the main output content without requiring an output schema. It omits usage guidance and return formatting, but the low complexity and obvious semantics make this an acceptable gap.

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 has zero parameters and the input schema fully reflects that. The description correctly adds no unnecessary parameter details, and the baseline of 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

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 lists concrete elements of what the tool exposes (branch, last commit, uncommitted changes), and the title clarifies that this is repository status. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'show' or 'report', and it does not explicitly differentiate from status-like siblings such as glm_status or mcp_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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like git_commit, glm_status, or mcp_status. No context is given such as checking state before committing, and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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