svn_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the output (structured changed paths and conflicts) but does not disclose if the command modifies anything, authentication requirements, or performance implications. It implies a read-only operation but does not confirm safety.

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, well-structured sentence with no extraneous words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is too brief. It does not explain key parameters like hideNoise and includeIgnored, nor does it describe the return format in sufficient detail. The tool's behavior in edge cases (e.g., no changes) is omitted.

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 coverage is 50%; two parameters (hideNoise, includeIgnored) lack schema descriptions and the tool description adds no further explanation. The description does not augment the schema beyond stating the tool is 'scoped'. Parameter meaning remains unclear.

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 runs 'svn status' and returns structured changed paths and conflicts. It uses a specific verb and resource, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like svn_diff or svn_revert.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of context where it should be avoided. The description is too brief to provide usage direction.

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