athena_git_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly enumerates the returned pieces of data (root, branch, head, dirty state) and uses 'Return' which implies a read-only operation. Though it doesn't explicitly say 'does not modify anything', the nature of a status check makes this clear enough.

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 that front-loads the verb and action. Every word contributes to explaining the tool's purpose without any fluff or repetition.

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 zero-parameter status tool with no output schema, the description adequately lists all returned fields. The term 'configured canonical Git brain root' is domain-specific but still clear enough within the tool's context, making the description complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the baseline for this case is 4. The description adds context about what the tool reports, which is enough since there are no inputs to document.

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 uses the specific verb 'Return' with a clear resource: configured canonical Git brain root, branch, head, and dirty state. It unambiguously identifies the tool's function and naturally distinguishes it from the long list of unrelated sibling tools.

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 by stating exactly what information is returned, making it evident when to use this tool. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, but given the tool's unique purpose among siblings and zero parameters, no further guidance is necessary.

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