git-status

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('Displays the status'), which is accurate, but it does not explicitly state that it makes no changes or mention any potential side effects. The description is adequate but not thorough.

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 that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. There is no extraneous information, and it is optimally brief for a simple read-only command.

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 (one optional param, no output schema), the description adequately covers its purpose and basic behavior. It does not describe the return format or typical output, but for a well-known git command, the purpose is clear. Slightly more detail would be beneficial.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for the single 'directory' parameter, so the schema alone fully describes it. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema states (e.g., default behavior). Base 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 'Displays the status of the git repository' clearly states the tool's function, using a specific verb ('displays') and resource ('status of the git repository'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like git-add or git-commit, but could be more specific about what status entails (e.g., modified, staged, untracked files).

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 its siblings. For example, it could note that git-status is typically run before git-add or git-commit to review changes. The description lacks any context about prerequisites or alternatives.

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