gitchanger_status

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. 'Show' correctly signals a non-mutating read, and the enumerated fields tell the agent what information comes back. However, it does not disclose failure behavior outside a Git repository, whether the global environment is reported alongside or instead of the repository, or whether any config is read from disk.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition, and the resource list is ordered from most to least expected. It is slightly dense as a comma-separated enumeration, but every element names a distinct reported value, so nothing is wasted.

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 two-optional-parameter, read-only status tool with no output schema, the description is largely sufficient because it enumerates the returned fields in place of a schema. The remaining gap is the absence of any note on behavior when cwd is omitted or points outside a repository. A simple status tool does not need much more than this.

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 both optional parameters (cwd, verbose) are already documented with adequate detail in the schema. The description adds only a light hint that the target scope can be repository-level or global, without mapping that to the cwd parameter or explaining what verbose diagnostics change. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Show') and enumerates the exact resources reported: Git identity, matching GitChanger profile, remote URLs, and GitHub MCP token status. This is far more concrete than a tautology. It stops short of 5 because it never distinguishes itself from the closely named sibling gitchanger_mcp_status, which plausibly reports an overlapping token-status slice.

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?

Scope is implied ('for the repository or global environment'), which hints that this is the diagnostic entry point before switching identities, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use rule is given. The agent must infer whether to call this versus gitchanger_list or gitchanger_mcp_status. No prerequisites (e.g., must be inside a Git repo) are stated.

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