ralph_git_status

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. It describes what information is returned but does not cover critical aspects such as whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), potential errors (e.g., if not in a git repo), performance characteristics, or output format. This leaves gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond basic functionality.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose statement ('Get git status and diff summary'), followed by a bulleted list that efficiently details the output. Every sentence and bullet point adds specific value without waste, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 tool's moderate complexity (providing git status information) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers what information is retrieved but does not address error handling, output structure, or dependencies (e.g., requires git to be installed). For a tool with no structured metadata, more behavioral context would improve completeness.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's output. This aligns with the baseline expectation for tools with no parameters, providing clear value without redundancy.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Get git status and diff summary') and resources ('git status'), and distinguishes it from siblings like ralph_git_commit (which commits changes) and ralph_git_context (which likely provides broader context). The bullet points further detail what information is retrieved, making the purpose explicit and differentiated.

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 by listing what information is shown (e.g., current branch, modified files), suggesting it's for checking git repository state. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ralph_git_context or ralph_status, and does not specify prerequisites or exclusions (e.g., only works in a git repository).

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