vcs_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond annotations by disclosing the return shape and the behavioral nuance that the listed mutation operations 'reload the editor,' implying the agent should re-query state afterward. It does not contradict the read-only 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?

Three sentences, zero filler. The core purpose and return payload are front-loaded in sentence one, usage triggers in sentence two, and exclusions in sentence three. Every sentence earns its place.

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 zero-parameter, read-only status check with no output schema, the description is complete: it fully specifies what is returned, when to invoke it (including triggering operations), and which sibling tools to use instead for related but different queries. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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?

The tool has zero parameters and an empty schema, so the baseline of 4 applies—there is no parameter documentation burden. The description instead documents the return payload, which is the meaningful input/output contract for a parameterless status tool; no parameter semantics are missing.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Read the current version-control state') and enumerates the exact return payload: the active branch ({ id, name, latestCheckpointId }), projectId, and merge-in-progress flag. This distinguishes it sharply from siblings like list_branches (lists all branches) and list_checkpoints (lists checkpoints).

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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance is provided: 'Use this to confirm which branch you are on, especially after create_branch/switch_branch/restore_checkpoint/hard_reset_checkpoint (which reload the editor).' It also gives explicit when-not-to-use instructions with named alternatives ('to list branches (use list_branches) or checkpoints (use list_checkpoints)').

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