git_status

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the behavior of timeout options (continue_background, kill, return_partial) and that continue_background returns a durable job_id, adding useful transparency. However, it does not disclose that the tool is read-only or non-destructive.

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 short (3 sentences) and front-loads the tool name. It avoids unnecessary words, but the structure could be improved by stating the purpose before diving into timing details.

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 7 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits the fundamental purpose of the tool (showing git status) and does not mention that an output schema exists. The execution timing details are over-emphasized relative to the tool's core function.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It explains the timing parameters (expected_runtime_seconds, timeout_seconds, etc.) and their intended use, adding value beyond the schema. However, it does not explain 'path' or 'porcelain' parameters, which are core to git_status.

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 primarily restates the tool name ('git_status') without explaining what git status does (e.g., show changes in working tree). The focus on execution timing obscures the core purpose. Compared to siblings like git_diff or git_log, the description does not clarify why one would use this tool.

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 on when to use git_status versus other git tools (e.g., git_diff, git_log). The description only discusses configuration of timing parameters, not the semantic context for choosing this tool over alternatives.

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