ck_git_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explicitly states the tool is read-only, side-effect free, and returns staged/unstaged/untracked files along with findings. Missing details like error conditions or performance impact, but covers key behavioral traits.

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?

Three sentences: purpose, return content, side-effect and usage, then sibling guidance. Every sentence adds value without 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 tool with 2 optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what it returns, when to use, and side-effects. Could mention prerequisites (e.g., must be in a git repo) but not essential.

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 description coverage is 50% (only project_root described). The description does not explain session_id or add any parameter-specific details beyond the schema. It fails to compensate for the missing schema description.

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 clearly identifies the tool as retrieving git working tree status correlated with CK governance findings, specifying the verb ('Get') and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by stating when to use ck_git_diff and ck_git_commit instead.

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 states to use before ck_git_commit to verify governance state, and contrasts with ck_git_diff for diff content and ck_git_commit for committing. Also declares side-effect-free nature.

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