Git Info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the return shape (branch, status, last 10 commits) that no output schema provides. It also implicitly signals a read-only operation via "Returns" and reveals a truncation limit at 10 commits. It stops short of stating failure behavior outside a git repo, so not a 5.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. The payload is front-loaded and the usage cue follows immediately, with no filler or restated name/title.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description does the essential work of naming the returned fields. It leaves minor gaps, such as what specifically constitutes "working tree status" (staged/unstaged/untracked) and behavior outside a repository, but the tool is simple enough that this is adequate.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter meaning, but there is nothing to describe.

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?

Specific verb+resource with the exact payload enumerated: current branch, working tree status, and last 10 commits. The precision of the returned content makes it unmistakable against siblings like read_project_file, search_code, or generate_commit_message without needing to name them.

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?

"Use this to check repository state before making changes or committing" gives clear situational context. It lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives, but no sibling overlaps enough to create ambiguity.

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