rba_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 and delivers a meaningful behavioral guarantee: 'without changing Git state.' It also discloses the categories of information returned, providing useful transparency. It does not describe error behavior or output format in detail, but for a read-only status tool this is adequate.

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 that communicates action, target, scope, and side-effect behavior with no wasted words. Every element contributes to understanding the tool.

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 read-only status tool, the description is complete: it names the inspection target, the data returned (branch/origin, changed/staged files, fingerprint), and explicitly states no Git state changes. With no output schema, this sufficiently communicates the tool's function and result.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by specifying what repository details are reported, even though there are no parameters to explain.

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 'Inspect' and clearly identifies the resource (RBA workspace Git repository) plus the exact scope: branch/origin, changed/staged files, and autoloader fingerprint. This distinguishes it from mutating Git tools like rba_git_sync_files by emphasizing read-only inspection.

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 for when to use this tool (inspect repository state, read-only) and explicitly notes it does not change Git state, implying it's the safe inspection choice. However, it does not name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it, so it stops short of full usage guidance.

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