Get Git Status

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) already cover the safety profile, lowering the burden on the description. However, the description adds no extra behavioral context such as what information the status includes (e.g., branch, staged/unstaged changes) or the return format. It is not contradictory, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded and contains no filler. It is appropriately sized for the simplicity of the tool.

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 tool is simple (one required parameter, no output schema, strong annotations). The description is adequate for a well-known git operation, but since no output schema exists, the description could have explained what the returned status contains. Still, the overall context is sufficient for an agent to use it correctly.

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% for the only parameter, agent_id, which is sufficiently documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information, so the baseline of 3 per the rubric 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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and the resource ('current git status for an agent's repo'), which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling git tools like list commits or list branches. However, it does not explicitly name any alternative tools, so it falls short of the 5-point bar.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any context about prerequisites or typical scenarios. The sibling list includes many git-related tools, but the description gives no hints on how to choose among them.

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