status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description adds context: 'Read-only: no Git or filesystem writes, no network.' Also outlines return structure. No contradiction. Adds useful behavioral info beyond annotations.

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?

Concise and front-loaded: first sentence states purpose, then usage guidance, behavioral disclaimer, return structure, and parameter. Every sentence adds value; no fluff.

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 simple tool (1 optional param, annotations, output schema exists), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage, behavior, return format, and parameter. Fully adequate for an AI agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 100%, and the description repeats the parameter info ('Git repo root (defaults to detected repo)') without adding new meaning. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as schema carries the load.

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?

Clearly states it reports hook install state, envelope count, and Matrix Scroll config. The verb 'Report' and specific resources establish a precise purpose. Distinguishes from sibling verify/sign tools by explicitly stating not for signature checks.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use: 'Call first in a new repo before any verify/sign tool.' Also gives when-not-to-use and alternatives: 'Do not use for signature checks — call verify_envelope or verify_pr_range instead.'

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