Git status and diff summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that this avoids an arbitrary shell, a meaningful value-add. It does not disclose return shape, patch-size truncation, or pagination behavior, which would raise it further.

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 well-formed sentence with the verb and scope front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though as one terse sentence it does not carry the structural load the sparse schema leaves to it.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotation coverage of parameters, so the description carries the full burden. For a 5-parameter tool it omits what each parameter does and what the return looks like, which is a substantial gap for an agent to invoke it 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 0% across 5 parameters, so the schema names them but explains none. The description nods at "diff summaries" (implying includePatch) but leaves cwd, deviceId, deviceName, and maxPatchBytes entirely undefined. With no compensation for the coverage gap, this cannot reach the baseline 3.

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+resource: "Return branch/status plus working-tree and staged diff summaries." This is clearly distinguishable from shell_run and process tools by its git-specific scope. The phrase "without invoking an arbitrary shell" hints at why it exists over a general shell, but does not name a sibling tool, so it stops short of 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?

The mention of operating "without invoking an arbitrary shell" implies the safe-read use case, which is a soft signal for when to reach for it. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no reference to the sibling git_commit_scope, leaving the alternative selection to inference.

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