Show Changes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds behavioral context by specifying that it combines git status and diff stats with an optional diff, and that it's 'review-oriented.' However, it doesn't disclose potential edge cases (e.g., empty workspace, invalid path) or any authentication nuances. Given the annotations cover the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the purpose and content of the result, and the second gives direct usage guidance. The key information is front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 explains what the tool returns and when to use it. The schema covers all parameter semantics. It does not mention behavior for edge cases like no changes or when the workspace is not open, but those are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity and the annotations. Overall, it's complete enough for an agent to call correctly.

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% for all four parameters, each with a clear description (path, staged, include_diff, workspace_id). The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb (summarize) and resource (current workspace changes) with explicit details on what the result contains: git status, diff stats, and optional diff. It also differentiates from alternatives like bash git status and git_diff by naming them.

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 'Use this instead of bash git status, bash git diff, git_status, or git_diff when reviewing work.' This gives clear when-to-use guidance and names the alternatives to avoid, leaving no room for ambiguity.

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