git_status

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

Whereas annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, the description adds meaningful behavioral guarantees: 'Does not run hooks, modify Git state, return credentials, or expose diff contents'. The worktree limitation also discloses a real edge-case constraint. This goes well beyond the structured annotations.

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?

Three dense sentences cover purpose, usage, and behavioral exclusions with no filler. The most important scoping information is front-loaded, and every clause adds operational value. This is an ideal size for a tool description.

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 description thoroughly covers safety, scope, and limitations, but it omits the meaning of the optional 'path' parameter and does not describe the output structure. Since there is no output schema, the agent must infer what the tool returns beyond the listed path categories. Overall it is close to complete but leaves a notable ambiguity in invocation.

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?

There is a single optional 'path' parameter with 0% schema description coverage, yet the description never explains what 'path' means or how it affects behavior. The parameter could refer to a repository path or a file/directory filter, which is ambiguous and potentially material to correct invocation. With low schema coverage, the description was required to compensate and did not.

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 opens with 'Read-only Git branch, modified, added, deleted, untracked and staged paths', naming a clear verb, resource, and exact scope. It also positions the tool among siblings by tying it to local Git state and runtime failures, making it easy to distinguish from http_request, db_query, and read_logs.

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?

It explicitly says to 'Use to relate local changes to runtime failures', giving a concrete intended use case. It also provides an exclusion: 'Linked worktrees are currently unsupported'. It does not explicitly name when not to use or name alternative tools, but the guidance is still clear enough for selection.

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