git_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. 'Em poucas linhas' usefully signals a deliberately compact, summarized output rather than full porcelain output, but it says nothing about read-only semantics, the need for the target to be a git repository, or what happens when the repo has no remote.

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 short clause listing the three things reported, front-loaded and free of filler. It is arguably too terse rather than padded, so conciseness itself is not the problem.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the tool still requires a 'pasta' argument that neither the schema nor the description characterizes. Given zero annotation coverage and 0% parameter documentation, the definition leaves the agent without enough to invoke it confidently in the right directory.

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% and the sole required parameter 'pasta' is never mentioned in the description. Whether it is a path relative to the workspace, an absolute path, or a repository root is left entirely undocumented, so the description adds no meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 names the concrete content produced: branch, relationship with the remote, and changed files, which clearly identifies a git status-style report and distinguishes it from mutating siblings like git_commit, git_pull and git_push. It lacks an explicit verb (e.g. 'mostra/exibe'), but the resource and scope are unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus the other git siblings (git_pull, git_commit, git_merge, git_push) or versus contexto_projeto. The agent must infer that this is the read-only inspection step before committing or pushing.

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