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 only states the core action ('returns git status lines') without disclosing potential side effects, prerequisites, or operational details. This is minimal transparency for a tool with zero annotation support.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and concise, effectively conveying the tool's function in a compact form.

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 lack of annotations and minimal description, the tool is incomplete for an agent to understand when and how to use it. Although an output schema exists, the description does not provide sufficient operational context or edge-case behavior, making it insufficient for reliable invocation.

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 must compensate. It references 'task' implicitly via 'da task' but does not mention 'product_root' or explain its purpose. The description provides only partial semantic context for the parameters.

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 a specific verb ('Retorna') and resource ('git status de cada projeto da task'), clearly indicating what the tool does. It distinguishes from siblings because none of the listed sibling tools appear to provide git status functionality.

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 usage (when you want git status for projects in a task) but provides no explicit when/when-not guidance or mention of alternatives. It does not exclude any scenarios, but it also does not offer context for choosing this tool over others.

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