git.status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the output contents (branch info, ahead/behind, file entries) and hints at normalization, but does not explicitly state that it is read-only or non-destructive, nor does it describe any potential edge cases or side effects.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose and output summary without any filler. Every word earns its place.

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 low-complexity tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the key return aspects (branch info, ahead/behind, file entries) and hints at normalization. It is complete enough for the agent to understand what it will receive, though it could marginally benefit from a note about when to use it relative to git.diff.

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?

The schema covers 100% of the parameter (max_entries) with a clear description including default and cap. The tool description does not add any extra parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('git status') and enumerates the key content ('branch info, ahead/behind, and file entries'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like git.diff by focusing on status summary rather than diffs.

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?

Usage is implied by the description and name: the tool is for retrieving git status. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., git.diff for detailed changes) or any exclusions or prerequisites.

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