diff

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden. It states what is returned ('tracked working-tree changes' and 'untracked files') but does not disclose output format, side effects, prerequisites (e.g., being a git repo), or whether the operation is read-only, though 'Return' implies read.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action. It contains no fluff and is easy to parse.

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 tool, the description covers the main function, but it omits the path parameter semantics and return format details. Given the tool's simplicity and lack of annotations, this is adequate but not complete.

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 description mentions no parameters. The schema defines an optional 'path' parameter, but the description provides no explanation of its meaning or effect, and schema description coverage is 0%. This is a significant gap.

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 function with specific verb 'Return' and identifies the resource: 'tracked working-tree changes against HEAD and list untracked files.' It distinguishes the tool from sibling memory-related tools, which are unrelated.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (to inspect working-tree changes and untracked files) without explicit alternatives. No exclusions are needed since siblings are unrelated, but the description could explicitly say 'use this for git diff'.

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