gitchanger_mcp_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. The verb "Show" implies a read-only operation and the description usefully discloses that status is gathered across profiles and detected AI client configurations, but it does not explicitly state that nothing is modified or mention any permission considerations.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. The parenthetical list of detected AI clients is compact and directly relevant to the tool's scope.

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 low-complexity status tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it identifies the resource, the scope, and the client configurations covered. The remaining gap is the lack of explicit read-only/side-effect language, which matters because no annotations are provided.

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%, so the optional cwd parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about how cwd affects status detection, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage baseline.

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, "Show," and a precise resource, "GitHub MCP token status," with scope across profiles and detected AI client configurations. It clearly distinguishes this as a status-viewing tool, though it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools such as gitchanger_mcp_get or gitchanger_mcp_test.

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 a diagnostic use case by saying it shows token status, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it, prerequisites, or how it relates to sibling tools like gitchanger_mcp_get or gitchanger_mcp_test.

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