ck_git_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint. Description adds 'Read-only and side-effect free — no findings are created or modified,' reinforcing the safety profile. While consistent with annotations, it adds explicit mention of CK findings immutability, which is helpful but not a major addition beyond the structured hints.

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 2-3 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence earns its place: returns, side-effect-free, usage guidance. No fluff or 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?

The description covers purpose, return content, behavioral guarantees, and usage context. It differentiates from siblings. Output schema exists but is not visible; however, description doesn't need to describe returns because output schema handles that. The description is complete for the agent to decide invocation.

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% (project_root has a full description, session_id has none). The description does not elaborate on parameters. Given the low coverage, the description should compensate but fails to do so, leaving session_id ambiguous.

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 states the tool retrieves git working tree status correlated with CK governance findings. It specifies returns: staged/unstaged/untracked files and blocked/open findings. It distinguishes from siblings by noting when to prefer ck_git_diff or ck_git_commit.

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 guidance: use before ck_git_commit to verify governance state. Provides alternatives: prefer ck_git_diff for diff content, ck_git_commit when ready to commit. This clearly tells the agent when and when not to use this tool.

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