repository_health

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 discloses that the tool returns three specific data points per repo, which is helpful, but it does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation or mention any prerequisites, edge cases, or side effects. This is a moderate level of transparency for a simple health check tool.

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 sentence of 13 words that directly states the action and the data returned, with no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail. It is an example of concise, front-loaded writing.

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, output schema present, read-only purpose), the description adequately states its primary function. It doesn't cover use-case guidance or explicit safety notes, but these are also addressed in other dimensions. The essential behavior is complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 100% for the only parameter (include_clean), which has its own description. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score 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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and names concrete resources: branch, dirty state, and ahead/behind. It clarifies scope with 'every configured repo,' making it clearly distinct from sibling tools like list_repositories (which likely only lists names) or git_log/git_diff (which focus on log/diff).

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 explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are exclusions or alternative tool names mentioned. However, the description implies a use case (querying overall git status of all repos), so usage is implied rather than absent.

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