git_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description's only added signal is the word "short", which hints at output volume but does not explain behavior such as what happens outside a repository or what errors surface. It adds little beyond the annotations.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficiently structured, though brevity here shades into under-specification rather than economy.

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 described, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still, for a tool sitting next to git_repository_status, the definition should say what differs and what "short" means; neither is present, leaving the agent without enough to choose confidently.

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 "repo" parameter has 0% schema description coverage and the description does not mention it at all — not its default of "." meaning current directory, nor whether relative or absolute paths are accepted. With one undocumented parameter, the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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?

"Show short git status" names a clear verb (show) and resource (git status), so the basic action is understandable. But "short" is ambiguous — it could mean a compact/porcelain output format or a summarized status — and the description never distinguishes this from the sibling tool git_repository_status, which sounds like it returns similar data.

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 use this versus git_repository_status or git_diff_summary, no mention of what "short" implies for output, and no preconditions (e.g., must be inside a git work tree). The agent must guess between two plausibly overlapping status tools.

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