project_status

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds fallback behavior for non-Git directories listing top-level files, which is useful context beyond annotations, though it omits details like permissions or error handling.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the primary function and fallback. It is appropriately sized with zero 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?

Complete for a simple read-only status tool with an optional workspace parameter; the description covers both Git and non-Git cases. It lacks return format details, but no output schema exists and the function is clear.

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 100% and the single workspace parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (读取) and resources (Git 状态和差异统计), plus a fallback for non-Git directories. Distinguishes from sibling read_project_file by focusing on project-level status rather than file contents.

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?

Implies usage for checking project Git status, but does not explicitly state when to use this versus read_project_file or other status tools. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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