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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states basic functionality without addressing potential side effects (e.g., uncommitted changes, error on existing branch name), required permissions, or failure modes. For a mutation tool this is insufficient.

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 with no extraneous information. Every word adds value: purpose, action, return values. Ideal length.

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 two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the basic operation and return value. However, it lacks error handling info, side effects (e.g., does it lose uncommitted changes?), and comparisons to branching alternatives. Adequate but incomplete for a state-changing tool.

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% (both parameters have descriptions). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond stating return values. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already adequately documents parameters.

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 explicitly states the tool creates a new branch from current HEAD and switches to it, with a clear verb+resource structure. It also notes the return values (branch name and base commit SHA), making the purpose unambiguous and distinguishing it from sibling tools like switch_work or push.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like switch_work (which switches without creating) or get_updates (which lists branches). No prerequisites or conditions are mentioned.

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