git_status

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

Annotations already mark this as readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive. The description adds substantial behavioral detail: the exact return format with first line and sections, the 10-file cap with ', and N more', and the effects of short and include_untracked flags. This goes well beyond the annotation safety profile.

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 well-organized and front-loaded. It opens with the core purpose, then usage, then return format, then exclusions, and a final comparison to raw git status. Every sentence contributes value, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

With three optional parameters and no output schema, the description fills gaps by specifying the return format, parameter effects, and explicitly contrasting with sibling tools. The combination of annotations, schema, and description fully equips the agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema already describes all parameters, so baseline is 3. However, the description adds meaningful semantics: 'short=True gives compact "--short --branch" output' and 'include_untracked=False omits untracked files', which explains how these flags alter the return shape.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Show the repository's working tree state: current branch, staged, modified and untracked files.' It also explicitly distinguishes from siblings by stating what it does NOT do ('Does NOT show file contents or diffs — use git_diff; does NOT list commit history — use git_log').

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 gives explicit usage context: 'Use this at the start of any edit task to answer "what changed?", and before committing to verify what will be staged.' It also names alternatives for non-covered cases, fulfilling the when/when-not/alternatives criterion.

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