Git status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering safety. The description adds exact command behavior. However, it lacks detail on potential output size or failure modes like non-git directories.

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 that conveys the essential action without unnecessary words. Perfectly concise.

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 an output schema exists, return value details are not needed. However, the description omits prerequisites (e.g., workspace must be opened and contain a git repo) and potential error conditions, leaving gaps for the agent.

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%, so the description must clarify the workspaceId parameter. The phrase 'inside an open workspace' hints at it, but does not explicitly state that workspaceId refers to an opened workspace or provide format constraints.

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 clearly states the action ('Run git status --porcelain=v1') and the resource ('inside an open workspace'). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like git_diff and workspace_status.

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 implies a precondition (workspace must be open) but does not explicitly mention when to use vs alternatives or provide exclusions. The context is clear enough for a simple tool.

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