glm_git_status

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, what it returns (e.g., full status output), or any side effects. The input schema partially compensates by describing the repo_path parameter, but the description itself adds no behavioral context.

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 sentence (in Korean) that is concise and front-loaded with the tool's action. It wastes no words but is arguably too terse, lacking structure for further details. For a simple tool, this conciseness is acceptable, though minimal.

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 simplicity of the tool and lack of output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the output looks like (e.g., branch, modified files, untracked files) or any nuances (e.g., whether it shows stashed changes). The single line fails to provide enough context for an AI agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 100% for the single optional parameter 'repo_path', which already describes its meaning (path with default set to current project root). The main description does not add information beyond the schema, earning a baseline score of 3. No param details are missing that the description could provide.

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 'Git 상태 조회' (View Git status) clearly indicates the tool's function: querying the Git status of a repository. It uses a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like glm_git_commit (commit), glm_git_diff (diff), and glm_git_log (log).

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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., must be in a Git repository), typical use cases, or scenarios where it should be avoided. The one-line translation offers only the basic action without context.

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