Inspect all current Git changes in one call

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds the behavioral note 'without re-scanning the whole project', which is useful but limited. No other traits (e.g., performance on large repos) disclosed.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the key outputs. It is not verbose but could be more structured (e.g., bullet points) for easier parsing. No redundant information.

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 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the major return items but lacks detail on maxDiffChars. It provides a good overview but is not fully complete for parameter semantics.

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?

With only 25% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning for includeDiff ('optional compact diff') and includeStaged ('staged changes'), but does not explain maxDiffChars. The schema itself is sparse, so the description partially compensates but not fully.

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 tool returns branch/status, changed file names, diff stats, and more, using the verb 'inspect' with 'changed files'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like git_status and git_diff by being a comprehensive single-call summary.

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 use as a one-call summary but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like git_status or git_diff. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

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