Repo health summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description reinforces that this is a read-only aggregate view, but adds nothing about cost (it may scan the working tree), whether it works on a dirty/empty repo, or error behavior — context the annotations don't carry.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the capability and packs the enumerated contents efficiently. Zero wasted words.

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 present, the description needn't detail return values, and the enumerated contents give a good preview. It's nearly complete for a read-only snapshot tool; only explicit routing guidance against sibling tools is missing.

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%, so both cwd and commits (with default) are already documented in the schema. The description only alludes to recent commits without adding format or bounds beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline for full-coverage schemas.

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 and resource ('One-call snapshot of a git working tree') and enumerates exactly what the snapshot contains: branch, ahead/behind, staged/unstaged/untracked counts, recent commits, diffstat. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling single-facet tools git_status, git_log, and git_diff.

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 phrase 'one-call snapshot' hints that this consolidates multiple narrower tools, but the description never explicitly says to prefer it over git_status + git_log + git_diff or when each alternative is better. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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