Git status

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the safety profile, so the description only needs added context. "Structured ... replaces parsing raw output" usefully flags that the result is machine-readable rather than porcelain text, but it says nothing about cost, scope limits, or what happens with a dirty multi-repo tree.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the payload contents front-loaded before the rationale. Nothing could be removed without losing 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?

With an output schema covering the returned fields and a single optional parameter, the description is close to sufficient. The one meaningful gap is default behavior when cwd is not supplied, which an agent would need to know before calling.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single cwd parameter, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds no semantics beyond the schema — notably it never states what happens when cwd is omitted and the optional default path is used.

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 the resource (git status) and enumerates exactly what it returns: branch, staged/unstaged/untracked files. This separates it from git_diff, git_log and git_branches, though those siblings are never named, so the differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

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?

"Replaces parsing raw git status output" implies when to reach for it (instead of shelling out to git status), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not and no alternative tool named. The agent must infer that git_diff or git_branches cover the narrower questions.

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