worktree_status

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

With readOnlyHint=true already declaring the safety profile, the description's contribution is the enumeration of what the status reports (policy/hook state, per-worktree safety, cache bytes), which tells the agent the scope of inspection. It does not describe the return shape, whether results are cached/live, or any cost, so it adds modest value over the annotation.

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 compact line with the key noun ('Worktree cache status') front-loaded followed by a scoped list of reported facets. It wastes no words, though the fragment style is slightly terse rather than fully structured.

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 read-only status tool with no output schema and fully documented parameters, the description covers the reported dimensions adequately and the annotation covers safety. An agent can invoke it correctly; only the exact return format is left unspecified.

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 the schema already documents json, budget, and workspace_path, including the constraint that workspace_path must map to this project. The description confirms the budget check is conditional but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 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 names a clear verb+resource combination ('Worktree cache status') and enumerates the specific facets reported: policy/hook state, per-worktree safety, cache bytes, and an optional budget check. It is concrete enough to act on, though it never distinguishes itself from nearby siblings such as worktree_audit or worktree_env, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says when to call worktree_status rather than worktree_audit, worktree_env, or worktree_activate. The only usage-adjacent signal ('optional budget check') indicates a parameter behavior, not a scenario where this tool is the right choice.

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