ep_get_commit_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool gets state (a read operation) and lists possible states, which is fairly transparent. However, it does not disclose behavior on missing commits, authentication needs, or any side effects (though none are expected). A bit more detail would improve transparency.

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 efficiently conveys the purpose and allowed states. No extraneous information is present.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description is mostly adequate but lacks information about the return format or error handling. The agent may need to infer the response structure from the listed states. While not critical, completeness could be improved.

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 coverage is 100% with the parameter 'commit_id' having a description ('Commit ID (epc_...)'). The tool description adds no extra semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves the current state of a commit and lists possible values (active, revoked, expired, fulfilled). It is a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('state of a commit'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like ep_revoke_commit (which changes state) and ep_verify_commit (which likely verifies something else).

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 the tool is for checking commit state but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., ep_verify_commit) or when not to use it. No exclusions or context about prerequisites are given.

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