Git status

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses one useful trait — the output omits sensitive-path entries — but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what 'safe' means beyond that omission, or how errors or invalid projects are handled.

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 is a single concise sentence with no filler, and the main action is front-loaded. It is efficient but slightly underspecified in ways that other dimensions capture.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity and the presence of an output schema, the core behavior is conveyed adequately. However, with no annotations and no parameter or usage guidance, an agent still has to infer what 'project' should be and when this tool should be preferred over sibling Git tools.

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 0%, and the description does not mention the required 'project' parameter at all. The name and minLength hint that it identifies a project, but the description adds no meaning beyond what the schema already minimally conveys.

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 identifies the core operation as returning Git status, with a distinguishing qualifier: it omits sensitive-path entries. This differentiates it from related Git tools like git_diff and git_log, though the terms 'safe' and 'sensitive-path' are left somewhat undefined.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling Git tools. It does not mention that it is a read-only status command, nor does it point to git_diff or git_log for changes or history.

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