git_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the return categories, implying a read-only inspection. However, it omits operational context such as behavior outside a git repository, permission requirements, or whether the working directory defaults to the current directory.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; every clause enumerates a distinct return category. Nothing is wasted or buried.

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 low-complexity, zero-required-parameter inspection tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what is returned. The minor gap is the absence of any note about non-repo behavior or cwd defaults, but the essential information for invocation is present.

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 coverage is 100% and the sole optional 'cwd' parameter is fully described in the schema. The description adds no syntax, default, or format detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 for a schema-covered single parameter 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 states a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('git working tree status') and enumerates the concrete outputs (staged, modified, untracked files, current branch). It is immediately clear what the tool does, though it never names or contrasts itself with siblings like git_diff or git_branch.

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, no conditions or prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as git_diff for content-level changes. The agent must infer usage entirely from the purpose statement.

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