Diagnose the git-bash environment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It is implicitly read-only (it only reports and offers fix steps) and the zero-parameter schema means side effects are low risk, but it never states that it makes no changes, whether it inspects the filesystem, or what the cost/latency of probing paths is. Adequate but not rich.

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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded: the first lists the diagnostic outputs, the second gives the trigger conditions. Every clause names a distinct output field or a distinct invocation condition; nothing is filler or restated from the name.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe the return content — and it does so field by field (paths, winner, GITBASH_BASH, git on PATH, audit log, fix steps). Combined with the zero-param schema and the stated triggers, an agent has everything needed to decide to call it and to interpret the result.

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 takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate — the baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4. There are no argument formats, defaults, or enums that need explanation.

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 gives a specific verb ('Report how git-bash and git are resolved') and enumerates the exact artifacts it surfaces: candidate paths probed, the winning path, GITBASH_BASH validity, git on PATH, audit log location, and fix steps. It is clearly a diagnostic, not an action tool. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling bash_info, which likely also concerns bash resolution, so 4 rather than 5.

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?

Explicit triggers are given: 'Run this first when exec reports BASH_NOT_FOUND or when bash behaves unexpectedly.' This tells the agent precisely when this tool is the right call versus the sibling exec. It stops short of naming or excluding bash_info/policy as alternatives, so no full when-not guidance.

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