Code MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get git repository status' implies a read-only operation, but it lacks details on what the status includes (e.g., staged/unstaged files, branch info), output format, error handling (e.g., if no git repo exists), or side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get git repository status'), making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place by directly contributing to understanding the tool's function.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for effective tool use. It doesn't explain what the status output entails (e.g., structured data vs. raw text), error conditions, or behavioral nuances. For a tool with no structured metadata, the description should provide more context to compensate.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'cwd' documented as 'Repository path'. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what the schema provides, such as default behavior if 'cwd' is omitted or path format examples. With high schema coverage, 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 'Get git repository status' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('git repository status'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'git_diff' or 'git_log', but the specific focus on 'status' is reasonably distinct within the git tool family.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a git repository), contrast with similar tools (e.g., 'git_diff' for changes or 'git_log' for history), or specify use cases (e.g., checking for uncommitted changes). This leaves the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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