git_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly describes the tool's read-only nature (returning status, not modifying anything), what it reports (staged/unstaged/untracked files), and the structure of the return value including keys like status, exit_code, stdout, stderr, output, and duration_ms. This is thorough for a simple status tool.

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 compact and well-structured, starting with a one-line summary, followed by a brief explanation of what it shows, a returns section, and an example. Every sentence adds useful information without unnecessary fluff.

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 tool with no parameters and a simple, well-known behavior, the description is complete. It explains the return value, provides an example, and adequately covers the tool's purpose. The presence of an output schema is noted, but the description's explicit return-key enumeration adds further clarity.

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 and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description includes an example call `git_status()` showing no arguments are needed. This matches the baseline of 4 for tools with no parameters.

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 states the tool returns the current Git working tree status and explicitly describes what it shows: staged, unstaged, and untracked files. This is specific, uses a clear verb+resource, and distinguishes it from sibling Git tools like git_log or 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 description gives clear context about what the tool does, making its use case obvious, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool vs alternatives or provide any exclusions. There is no alternative tool referenced, so the usage guidance 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.