ssh_git_status

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

With no annotations, the description effectively communicates that this is a read-only operation that fetches repository status. It does not disclose potential side effects or dependencies like git installation, but the 'status' intent is clear.

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 concise, using a brief purpose statement followed by parameter definitions. It avoids redundancy, though the return description could be integrated more tightly. Still, every line serves a purpose.

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?

The description covers purpose and parameters adequately for a simple tool. However, it lacks details on the return value format (e.g., whether it's a string, list, or structured object), which may hinder an agent's ability to parse the output reliably.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description provides clear, actionable details for both parameters: 'cwd' is the git repo path with default behavior, and 'host' is an SSH alias with default. This adds significant value beyond the schema.

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 retrieves git status from a remote server, and specifies the exact information returned (branch, modified, staged, untracked files). It is distinct from sibling tools like ssh_git_diff and ssh_git_log.

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 usage by naming the returned data, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria. It lacks guidance on prerequisites or conditions.

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