git_status

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses both the safety profile ('Does not modify system state') and a key behavioral constraint ('repo path must be within allowed roots ~/Projects, ~/Documents'). These are the two most important behavioral facts for invoking a read-only status tool correctly.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste: the first fronts the core purpose and return contents, the second states the path constraint, and the third gives usage context plus the safety note. Every sentence 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?

With an output schema present, return values need no description. The write-up covers the operation, the path constraint critical for correct invocation, when to use it, and its non-mutating nature. The only gap is error behavior for invalid or out-of-scope paths, which is minor for a simple single-parameter read-only 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining the repo parameter is a path that must fall within the allowed roots (~/Projects, ~/Documents). This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare 'repo: string' schema entry, though it omits details like whether relative paths are accepted.

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 ('Returns the Git status of a repository') and enumerates exactly what is included: branch, ahead/behind counts, modified, untracked, and deleted files. This clearly separates it implicitly from siblings like git_diff (changed content) and git_log (history), though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this when investigating uncommitted changes, branch status, or repository state.' However, it never names alternatives or states when not to use this tool, so an agent must infer that git_diff or git_log are the choices for diff or history needs.

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