ownership

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the output contract ('human-readable markdown table, not JSON'), which is real behavioral value since there is no output schema. However, it does not state that the tool is read-only/side-effect free, nor whether it requires an initialized project — both meaningful for an unannotated 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?

Two tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the return-format caveat second. Every clause earns its place; there is no filler.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essentials, including the non-JSON return shape that an agent would otherwise have to discover empirically. It could be more complete by noting the tool is read-only and any project-context prerequisite.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the schema has no properties, so there is nothing to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter meaning is missing.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Show file ownership rules') and unpacks the ambiguous term 'ownership' with a parenthetical about which files the tool writes vs. which the user can edit. It is distinguishable from the read_*/list_* siblings, but it never names a related tool (e.g., read_config, get_root) to sharpen the boundary, so it stops short of a 5.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance anywhere in the description; no trigger condition, prerequisite, or alternative tool is mentioned. For a zero-parameter informational tool this is less damaging, but the agent is left to infer that this is the diagnostic command to run when unsure about write access.

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