sandbox_git_status

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the return information (current branch, modified/staged/untracked files), which is useful. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (none expected) or authentication/permission requirements, nor the exact format of the output (e.g., whether it returns raw git output or structured data). Adequate but not exhaustive.

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?

Single sentence that is concise and informative, containing all key elements: verb, resource, and expected output. No filler words. Excellent for a tool with few parameters.

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 simple read-only nature of the tool (generic git status), no output schema, and only 2 parameters fully described in schema, the description is mostly complete. It could benefit from briefly noting that it requires an existing git repository or that it is equivalent to 'git status' output, but current description suffices for typical use.

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%, with both parameters (sandboxId, repoPath) described in the schema. The description does not add semantic details beyond the schema, such as valid sandbox ID formats or path conventions. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'git status of a repository in a sandbox'. It lists the returned information (current branch, modified/staged/untracked files), distinguishing it from sibling tools like sandbox_git_branch (which only gets branch info) and sandbox_file_list (file listing without git status).

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?

The description implies usage when needing git status in a sandbox, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over related tools (e.g., sandbox_git_branch) or when not to use it (e.g., if only branch name is needed). No exclusion criteria or alternatives mentioned.

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