git_status

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

The description implies a read-only view operation but does not explicitly state that no changes are made or describe the output format. With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden, and while 'View' hints at safety, it lacks explicit detail about behavior.

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 concise sentence that states the purpose directly without any filler or redundancy.

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 0-parameter status tool, the description adequately conveys the core functionality. However, with no output schema or annotations, it does not specify the exact return format or level of detail, leaving some room for interpretation.

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 0 parameters, so the baseline for this dimension is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the empty schema is consistent with the tool design.

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 uses 'View' as a specific verb and clearly identifies the resource as 'Git status' with scope on staged/unstaged changes. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like git_diff or git_log, but the concept is distinct enough.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as git_diff or git_log. There is no mention of when this is the appropriate choice or any prerequisites.

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