emacs_git_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. The word 'Get' implies a read-only operation and the parenthetical indicates what file groups are reported, but the description does not explicitly state that the working tree is not modified or describe the output format.

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 sentence with no filler. The parenthetical adds useful scope information without redundancy, and the core verb and resource are front-loaded.

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 status tool, the description plus the schema covers the essential invocation details. However, because there is no output schema, the description leaves return formatting (raw git output versus parsed file lists) implicit, so it is not fully complete.

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%: the only parameter, repo_path, is already documented as optional and using the current directory. The tool description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score 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 states the exact operation 'Get git status' and names the relevant file categories (staged, unstaged, untracked files). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like emacs_git_diff or emacs_git_log, so an agent can identify the tool by its purpose alone.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as emacs_git_diff, emacs_git_stage, or emacs_git_log. There is no mention of context, exclusions, or which sibling to prefer in different situations.

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