check_git_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Return' implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose what happens with an invalid or missing repo_path, whether it errors outside a Git worktree, or any side effects, which leaves meaningful gaps for a zero-annotation tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler that immediately conveys the tool's output. It is arguably terse to the point of omitting needed detail, but nothing in it is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the operation is simple. However, with no annotations and no parameter documentation, the description should at least clarify the repo_path default and error behavior to be complete.

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% and repo_path has a default of null, yet the description never mentions the parameter or explains what path it expects or what happens when it is omitted (current directory? default worktree?). With one undocumented, optional path parameter, this is a real gap.

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?

States a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('staged, unstaged, and untracked files for a Git worktree'), so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It doesn't need sibling differentiation because generate_commit_message is plainly a different task, but it stops short of explicitly distinguishing the two.

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 says only what is returned; it gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. must be inside a repo), and no mention of the sibling generate_commit_message as a follow-on or alternative. Usage must be entirely inferred.

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