Version-control status

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already marks it safe, and the description adds useful behavior beyond that: every content write is auto-committed and can be reverted via restore_resource. This alerts the agent to causality and reversibility while remaining consistent with the read-only annotation.

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?

The description delivers a dense but complete picture in two sentences. Every phrase adds value: the enable condition, the reported fields, and the operational consequence of auto-committing. There is no filler.

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 zero-parameter read-only status tool, this description is complete. It tells the agent what will be reported, how version control is enabled, which environment variables matter, and what behavior follows when enabled.

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 and 100% schema coverage, so no parameter explanation is necessary. The description correctly focuses entirely on behavior and return meaning rather than inventing input semantics.

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, 'Report', and names precise resources and scope: portal version-control enabled state, repo location, and push configuration. It reads as a clear status command that an agent can distinguish from vc_log, vc_diff, and restore_resource without inspecting those tools.

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 provides clear context: call this tool when you need to know the version-control configuration or understand auto-commit behavior. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclude cases, so it stops short of a 5.

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