get_git_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'Return git status' without detailing what aspects of status are included (e.g., staged/unstaged changes, untracked files, branch info), or whether it has side effects. The read-only nature is implied but not stated.

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 sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and easy to parse. However, it is so terse that it borders on under-specification, though for a parameterless tool this is acceptable.

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 the tool's simplicity and lack of parameters, the description is still incomplete. There is no output schema, so the description should clarify what 'git status' returns (e.g., a summary of changes, branch name, etc.), but it doesn't. This leaves the agent uncertain about the exact output format.

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 score of 4 applies. The empty schema already covers everything, and the description does not need to add parameter details. No ambiguity exists.

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 'Return git status.' clearly states the verb (return) and resource (git status), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_changed_files or get_git_diff, which also deal with repository state.

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 doesn't mention scenarios where checking git status is appropriate or mention that more specific tools exist for changed files or diffs.

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