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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature implicitly by saying 'Report', and lists what values are surfaced, but says nothing about format, caching, or whether output is human- or machine-readable. Adequate but thin for an annotation-free 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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and immediately followed by the alternative. No filler.

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 parameterless info tool with no output schema, the description covers what it reports and where to go if more is needed. It could name the keys returned, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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?

Zero parameters, so the schema provides nothing to describe and the baseline is 4. The description correctly reflects a no-argument tool rather than implying hidden inputs.

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) plus concrete resources (bash path, bash/git versions, key environment values), and names the sibling 'doctor' as the richer alternative. An agent can distinguish this from exec/doctor/policy without reading schemas.

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?

Explicitly routes heavier diagnostic needs to 'doctor', giving a clear alternative for the wider case. It stops short of stating when this tool is the right choice vs. checking exec or policy, but the routing cues are solid.

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

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.

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: fresh process per call with no persistent state, non-zero exit_code returned as JSON rather than a tool error, destructive-command blocking with APPROVAL_REQUIRED/POLICY_DENIED codes, 4-command concurrency limit with queued_ms, 64KB per-stream output cap with spill file, process-tree kill on cancel, and audit logging. This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the routing rule, which is good. However the back half is a dense wall of operational detail (policy codes, resource limits, audit log, BASH_NOT_FOUND) that is comprehensive but heavy; some items (e.g., audit log command) feel peripheral to invocation decisions and could be trimmed or deferred to the doctor/policy siblings.

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 5-param tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description nearly covers everything an agent needs: routing, stateless behavior, error/exit-code semantics, policy gating, resource limits, cancellation, and the missing-bash fallback. No output schema exists, yet return behavior is explained, so nothing critical is missing.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by warning that each call starts a fresh process (state does not persist) and advising to use cd in the command or pass cwd, which clarifies the cwd parameter's role in the stateless model. Slightly above baseline.

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 (run), resource (a git-bash command/script), and the return payload (stdout, stderr, exit code). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling sandboxed PowerShell/shell tool and the native PowerShell tool, so an agent can route correctly without opening any schema.

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 when-to-use (git, grep/sed/awk pipelines, shell loops, make, scripts) and when-not (Windows-native cmdlets, COM, .NET — use the PowerShell tool). It also contrasts with the sandboxed shell tool by noting this one runs outside the sandbox. Alternatives are named, not merely implied.

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

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.