Get git integration config

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows it's safe. The description adds valuable detail about resolvedGitMode and gitModeSource, and that git is disabled by default, which goes beyond 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?

Two sentences efficiently convey purpose, behavior, and key details. Front-loaded with the main action and resource, no wasted words.

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?

For a simple read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully explains what is returned (fields and their resolution order). It is complete given the tool's complexity and lack of output schema.

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?

The input schema has only one parameter 'project' with no description (0% coverage). The description does not elaborate on the 'project' parameter (e.g., format, requirements, or examples), leaving the agent to infer from the required flag. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate but does 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 clearly states it reads git integration settings, lists the specific fields (enabled, remote, branch, etc.), and distinguishes from siblings like set_git_config and get_global_config. The verb 'Read' and resource 'project's optional git integration settings' are specific.

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 explains the resolvedGitMode derivation and default disabled state, providing context for when to use this read operation. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_global_config or set_git_config, though the context of reading vs writing is clear.

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