get_status

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. The word 'Get' implies a read-only operation and no side effects, but this is not explicitly stated, and the tool's behavior (e.g., whether it checks for changes, current branch, or commits) is undisclosed. The output schema exists but the description does not reference it.

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 captures the tool's essence without wordiness. Every word contributes to the meaning.

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 simple status-checking tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is minimal but arguably sufficient for a basic understanding. However, it lacks context about what 'Aider and git status' specifically reports, and the absence of usage guidance makes it less complete for an agent deciding when to invoke it.

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 single parameter project_path is fully documented in the schema with a clear description and default value. The description does not add extra detail, but with 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 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 uses the verb 'Get' with the resource 'Aider and git status', making the action unambiguous. It is distinct from sibling tools which are code modification actions (improve_code, add_feature, etc.), though it does not explicitly describe what 'Aider and git status' entails beyond the name.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tools are all action-oriented, so one might infer this is for pre-action status checks, but the description does not state this or offer any alternatives.

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