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

With no annotations, the description must fully convey behavior. It states the tool lists changed files and returns file counts and paths per status group, which helps understand the output. However, it does not mention any behavioral traits like read-only nature, performance, or prerequisites.

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 that front-load the purpose and include return details. No wasted words, efficient communication.

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 tool is simple with one parameter. The description explains returns (counts and paths by status group) but lacks output schema. The explanation is adequate but vague on what 'by status group' entails. For a low-complexity tool, it is minimally complete.

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% for the single parameter 'workingDirectory'. The schema already provides a description equivalent to what the tool description might add. The baseline of 3 applies as the description does not add significant value beyond the schema.

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 the tool lists changed files and specifies the categories (staged, unstaged, untracked) and return format (counts and paths by status group). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'show_change' which likely shows a single change.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It only describes what it does without indicating appropriate contexts or exclusions. Sibling tools like 'get_updates' or 'show_change' could overlap, but no differentiation is provided.

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