Git 状态

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already establishes the operation is safe. The description adds transparency by explicitly revealing the exact command and its flags (--short --branch), so an agent knows precisely what output format to expect. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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?

A single sentence fully captures the tool's behavior with no filler. The most important information, the exact command executed, is front-loaded and sufficient.

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?

For a simple read-only command with one optional parameter, the description is mostly adequate. However, it omits any mention of cwd semantics and provides no usage context, which leaves minor but real gaps for an agent deciding whether this tool fits the task.

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 sole parameter cwd has no schema description and 0% schema description coverage. The description never mentions cwd or how it affects execution. The name 'cwd' is conventional, but the description does not compensate for the missing semantic detail.

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 states exactly what the tool does: '返回 git status --short --branch' (returns git status --short --branch). This names a specific verb, resource, and flags, making it clearly distinct from sibling tools like git_diff, git_log, and git_show.

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 no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is appropriate for inspecting working tree state, nor does it exclude cases where git_diff or git_log would be more suitable.

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