git_remote_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of transparency. It discloses that the tool shows remote URLs and provides the return dict structure, but it does not mention potential side effects, failure modes, prerequisites, or behavior outside a git repository. This is adequate but not rich.

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 extremely concise, using one clear sentence followed by the return format. It is front-loaded with the key purpose and contains no extraneous text, earning a perfect score.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with no parameters and an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It clearly states what is returned, but it could be slightly more useful by noting that it operates on the current repository or by mentioning failure behavior if no remotes exist or if not in a git directory. Nonetheless, it suffices for typical use.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain. The description appropriately omits parameter details, and the schema already documents the empty parameter set. This meets the baseline for tools with no params.

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's function: showing configured remote repositories and their URLs. This is a specific verb-resource pairing that distinguishes it from sibling git tools like git_status or git_log, which serve different purposes.

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 usage in contexts where remote repository information is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any preconditions like being inside a git repository. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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