plur_sync_status

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, indicating safe read-only behavior. The description adds valuable context about the specific status fields (initialized, remote, dirty, ahead/behind), which helps the agent understand the tool's output, though it does not detail other behavioral traits like lack of side effects.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Check git sync status') and efficiently lists the specific checks. Every word adds value, with no redundancy.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately lists the status components returned. However, it does not describe the output format (e.g., string, booleans, counts) which could help the agent better interpret results. Still, it provides sufficient information for basic usage.

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 schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to explain parameters. Per instructions, baseline is 4 for no parameters, and the description adds no additional parameter info, which is appropriate.

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 checks git sync status, specifying exactly what aspects are covered: initialization, remote existence, dirty state, and ahead/behind counts. The verb 'Check' and resource 'git sync status' are specific and distinguish this from tools like 'plur_sync' that perform sync actions.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings, such as 'plur_status' or 'plur_sync'. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer context from the name alone.

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