check_kit_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the mechanism (git rev-parse/diff --name-only), the fact that it does not read module contents, and that it only concerns static snapshot files. It also lists the return cases: current/changed (+list of files), no stamp, no local git history. This is thorough behavioral disclosure, including limitations and edge cases.

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?

Although the description is somewhat long, every sentence serves a purpose: it states the core check, the cheap method, the scope exclusion (modules), and the return format. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and then details. No redundancy or fluff.

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?

The tool has no parameters, an output schema exists, and the description covers the behavior, the return format (Markdown with status), and edge cases (no stamp, no history). It is complete for an agent to understand what it does and what to expect. The description also clarifies the distinction from sibling tools, so nothing 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, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). No additional parameter semantics are required.

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's purpose: 'Sprawdź czy kit zmienił się od ostatniego bootstrap-project.sh' (Check if the kit changed since the last bootstrap-project.sh). It specifies the resource (kit) and the action (check status), and distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting that modules are handled live by get_bundle/get_overlay, so this tool only concerns files that bootstrap copies. This is a specific verb+resource with clear differentiation.

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 explains the context of use: it's a cheap check comparing a stored commit to HEAD, and it clarifies that module files are not covered because they are read live elsewhere. This implies when to use this tool (to decide if re-bootstrap is needed) and when not to (for modules). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives but does reference get_bundle/get_overlay, providing enough guidance.

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