git_get_status

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

Annotations already declare the operation as readOnly and non-destructive. The description adds value by defining what 'status' means in this context—the sync state between workspace and remote—which is behavioral context beyond the annotations. There is no contradiction.

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 that front-loads the action and resource, with a useful clarifying parenthetical. There is no redundant or extraneous wording, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 definition is adequate for a simple read-only status check, but with no output schema it does not describe the shape or granularity of the returned status (e.g., per-item details, summary, or changed files). It also omits any precondition such as an existing git connection, which sibling tools further suggest may be relevant.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter (workspaceId), so the schema already documents the parameter meaning. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Git status of items in a workspace') and clarifies the meaning via the parenthetical 'shows sync state between workspace and remote'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling git tools like git_commit_to_git or git_update_from_git, which operate on the sync state rather than report it.

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 clear use case—checking the sync state between workspace and remote—so an agent can infer when this tool is relevant. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, but the context is clear and there are no misleading exclusions.

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