Git status

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces read-only behavior. It also adds meaningful transparency about what the report includes (branch, file statuses, last commit, clean state), giving the agent a clear picture of the tool's informational coverage beyond the basic read-only hint.

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, focused sentence followed by a two-word safety qualifier. Every word earns its place: it states the action, lists the key outputs, and declares read-only behavior without any fluff or 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?

For a single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description provides a complete picture of what the tool returns: branch, file statuses, last commit, and clean/dirty state. This is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role in the workflow and what it will receive.

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 only parameter, projectPath, is fully documented in the schema with a clear description ('Absolute path to the project root.'). Schema coverage is 100%, so the description need not add parameter details. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, but the schema already handles this adequately.

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 function with a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('the Git state'), followed by concrete details of what is reported: current branch, staged/modified/untracked files, last commit, and working-tree cleanliness. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like inspect_project or generate_patch.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions. However, the 'Read-only' annotation and clear purpose imply it is appropriate for inspecting repository state before making changes, so usage context is somewhat implied rather than missing entirely.

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