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. It discloses the return content and the workspace-relative scoping constraint, but does not state that it is read-only, what happens if the path is not a git repository, or any error/permission behavior.

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 short, front-loaded sentences plus a compact Args line; no filler, and the essential scope constraint appears before the parameter note.

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 simple, single-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, scope, and the parameter's meaning. It stops short of stating read-only nature or failure modes, but little else is required for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining that 'path' points to the git repository and is relative to the workspace root — meaning beyond the bare type/default in the schema. This is the key semantic an agent needs to pass the parameter correctly.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get `git status`') and clarifies the returned content ('branch info + changed files') and scope ('for a repository inside the workspace'). This meaningfully separates it from git_log and git_diff, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 — an agent can infer this is the tool for inspecting working-tree state — but there is no explicit statement of when to use this vs git_log, git_diff, git_branches, or git_current_branch, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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