git_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read-only operation via 'Show', which is accurate, but adds nothing beyond the obvious—no mention of permissions, side effects, or output nuances. It is technically transparent but minimally informative.

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, front-loaded sentence: 'Show the working tree status (git status).' Every word contributes to meaning, and the parenthetical reference to `git status` provides a universally understood anchor. No wasted words.

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 simple tool with a single optional parameter and an output schema, the description captures the core function adequately. The output schema supplies return details, and the `git status` reference provides enough context for an agent to understand when to invoke it. Slightly more context about alternatives or error behavior would improve completeness, but it is largely sufficient.

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 input schema already provides a complete description of `repo_path` with a default value, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description does not add any parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 uses the specific verb 'Show' with the resource 'working tree status' and explicitly references the well-known `git status` command, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling git tools like `git_diff` and `git_log` by targeting the unique 'working tree status' concept.

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 alternatives; it simply states what it does. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or contrastive references to sibling tools, leaving all usage decisions to the agent.

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