git_status

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It adds useful context by calling it 'Free local I/O,' implying no network cost and no side effects, but it does not disclose output shape, exit behavior, or any edge cases. For a simple read-only status tool this is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and the second sentence provides decision-relevant guidance. No redundant or filler content.

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 no output schema, the description could have explained the return format, but 'Working-tree status' is conventionally understood and sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly. The 'first thing to check' guidance completes the practical context, and the schema fills in parameter details.

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 all three parameters. The description adds general context about 'project root' but no specific parameter details beyond what the schema provides, justifying the baseline 3.

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 reports 'Working-tree status of a project root via git' and pairs it with a specific use case: 'the first thing to check before planning or reviewing.' This distinguishes it from sibling review tools like git_diff and git_log even though those aren't named.

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 gives explicit timing guidance: 'the first thing to check before planning or reviewing.' It does not, however, name when not to use it or explicitly point to alternatives such as git_diff or git_log, so it falls short of a full 5.

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