git_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description goes further by enumerating specific non-actions ('never initializes, stages, commits, or pushes') and flagging 'in-progress operation risk', which is valuable behavioral context not present in the structured metadata.

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 filler. The core purpose and return contents are front-loaded, followed by explicit non-behaviors. Every clause earns its place.

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 output schema documents the return shape, so the description only needs to convey invocation-relevant details. It covers scope ('active vault only'), key return categories, and behavioral constraints. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document; schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description correctly avoids inventing parameters, satisfying the baseline for parameterless tools.

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 uses a specific verb ('Inspect') and names the exact resource ('local Git state for the active vault'). It enumerates distinct return items (HEAD/branch, change counts, staged-outside-vault warnings, risk) that clearly differentiate it from sibling tools like git_history and git_snapshot.

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 scope is clearly stated ('active vault only') and the read-only nature is explicit, giving an agent solid context for when this tool is safe to invoke. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when to prefer this over git_history/git_snapshot, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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