git_work_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the internal process (reading commits, git show, AI analysis) and the output format. It mentions writing to an output file but does not explicitly state it's a read operation on Git, though implied.

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 well-organized with a summary and bullet points, but it is somewhat lengthy at 8 lines. It is front-loaded with the core function, making it easy to scan 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?

Despite no output schema or annotations, the description thoroughly explains behavior, output format, and usage. It covers what the tool does, how to use it, and the expected output, leaving no critical gaps.

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 100%, so baseline 3. The description adds context linking date to daily mode and start_date/end_date to periodic mode, and notes output_file is optional. This adds marginal value beyond the schema descriptions, which are already clear.

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 generates work reports from Git diff analysis, supporting daily and periodic modes. It distinguishes itself from siblings like gencommit, code_review, etc. by focusing on report generation rather than commit creation or review.

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 explicit usage examples for both daily and periodic modes, and explains the core functionality. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it directly to siblings, leaving some inference required.

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