get_worktree_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states returns success/status/error, but does not disclose read-only nature, authorization needs, or any side effects. Minimal transparency.

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?

Description is short and lists parameters, but the contradiction reduces effectiveness. It is front-loaded with the purpose, but not all sentences earn their place due to inaccuracy.

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?

Tool is simple but description lacks details on return structure (e.g., what fields in 'status'). Output schema exists but is not provided in description. Incomplete for effective use.

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 0%, so description must add meaning. However, description states caller_agent_id is '必須' (required) while schema shows it as optional with default null, creating a direct contradiction. This misleads the AI agent.

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?

Description clearly states it gets git status of a specified worktree. Verb 'get' and resource 'worktree status' are specific, and the tool is distinct from sibling tools like create_worktree or list_worktrees.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. Usage is implied as checking worktree status, but there is no discussion of alternatives or prerequisites.

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