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 burden. It describes what information is returned but does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation with no side effects, nor does it mention potential performance limitations for large repositories. The description adds some context beyond a bare 'status' but is not fully transparent.

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 concise sentences: the first lists all the contents, the second gives usage guidance. No unnecessary words, information is front-loaded, and the structure is exemplary.

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?

Without an output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the return values include (branch, upstream, counts, file states). It does not mention formatting details or edge cases like empty repos, but for a simple status tool with one optional parameter, this is adequate.

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 100% for the single 'workspace' parameter, so the schema already documents it. The description does not add any additional parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 specifically enumerates what the tool returns: current branch, upstream tracking, ahead/behind counts, and staged/unstaged/untracked files. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like git_diff (which shows diffs) and git_log (which shows history), and uses an implicit but obvious 'get status' verb.

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 'Check this before committing, and to notice user changes you did not make,' which provides explicit usage context. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the sibling context makes it clear this is the pre-commit status check.

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