git_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the bar is lower. The description adds value by disclosing the return content, capping behavior, lease renewal, and path constraint—context beyond the structured annotations. No contradiction.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence provides necessary info without waste.

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?

With an output schema present and strong annotations, the description covers purpose, return content, constraints, and lease behavior. It is complete for the tool's complexity, though it could briefly mention project registration requirements.

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%, so the description carries the burden. It clarifies `path` (must stay under root) and `lease_id` (renews if provided), and implies `max_entries` with 'capped.' However, `project` and the exact relationship between `max_entries` and the cap are not explicitly stated, leaving room for ambiguity.

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: 'Structured read-only git status for a registered project root.' It enumerates the returned data (branch, upstream ahead/behind, staged/unstaged/untracked entries), which distinguishes it from siblings like git_diff or workspace_status.

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 gives clear context: it is read-only, for a registered project root, and path must stay under the root. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the constraints and read-only nature provide enough guidance for selection.

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