git_status

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'Get,' implying a read operation without explicitly stating that it does not modify state. It does not disclose what happens if the directory parameter is omitted, whether it can fail, or any side effects. Minimal transparency beyond the basic operation.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's core function, and it is appropriately concise.

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 minimal schema and no output schema, the description does not explain how 'the current project' is determined, what happens with the optional directory parameter, or what the return format looks like. For a simple tool, some of this context is missing, making the description incomplete.

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 input schema has one parameter 'directory' with no description, and the schema coverage is 0%. The description does not mention this parameter at all, leaving the agent to guess its meaning, purpose, and default behavior. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'git branch and working tree status,' clearly indicating the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from sibling git tools (e.g., git_recent_commits, git_file_history) by focusing on status rather than commit history.

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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites are mentioned (e.g., must be in a git repository), and there are no exclusions. The description states only what the tool does, not when to use it.

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