git_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which the description does not contradict. The description adds valuable behavioral context by noting that it auto-detects the repo root and limits output to the 5 most recent commits. It does not detail error behavior (e.g., when not in a repo), but the annotation coverage lowers the bar, and the added context justifies a 4.

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, well-structured sentence with no redundancy. It front-loads the action and resource, then lists specific outputs, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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?

The tool is simple, has good annotations, and no output schema. The description clearly states what the tool returns (branch, file states, commits) and adds the auto-detection behavior. There are no obvious gaps that would prevent an agent from using or understanding 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'path', which is fully described. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 'Show' with a clear resource ('git repository status') and enumerates the exact contents: current branch, staged/unstaged/untracked files, and recent commits. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like git_diff, which focuses on changes, and from system monitoring tools like get_cpu_usage.

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 clearly implies its use case: checking the overall state of a git repository. It does not explicitly name alternatives or mention when not to use it, but the context is unambiguous given the sibling list and the direct phrasing. A score of 4 is appropriate because there is clear context but no explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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