Show the command policy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does so well: it names the controlling variable (GITBASH_MCP_RISKY), where it is set (MCP client config), and the three components returned. It does not explicitly state that the call is read-only/side-effect free, which is the only remaining gap for a zero-argument introspection tool.

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 earning their place: the first enumerates output content, the second gives the triggering condition and rationale. Front-loaded with what the tool reports rather than preamble.

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 sketch return content, and it does by listing the stance, per-tier rule behavior, and the rule list. It stops short of describing format or structure of the rule list, a minor omission for an otherwise self-contained introspection 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline this scores 4; there is no parameter semantics to add. The description's mention of GITBASH_MCP_RISKY usefully clarifies that the stance is external configuration rather than a call argument.

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?

States a specific verb (Report) and precisely enumerates the resource: the active risky-command stance, what each rule tier does, and the full rule list. This is plainly distinguishable from exec, bash_info, and doctor, none of which report policy state.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition — call this after exec returns error_code POLICY_DENIED or APPROVAL_REQUIRED — and states the goal (explain the block and the user's options). Nothing about when to invoke is left to inference.

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