orca_worktree_showRetrieve full details for a single Git worktree using its ID, path, name, branch, or issue selector to inspect its configuration and status.
Show full details of one worktree.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| worktree | Yes | Worktree selector: id:<repo-id>::<path>, path:<absolute-path>, name:<display-name>, branch:<branch> or issue:<number>. Use orca_worktree_list for exact values. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is clear without the description. The description adds only that the result contains 'full details,' without explaining error behavior for invalid selectors or what categories of details are returned.
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 the key operation and scope front-loaded. There is no redundant or filler text.
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 simple one-parameter read tool with rich schema coverage and explicit safety annotations, this is mostly sufficient. However, with no output schema, 'full details' remains vague and the description does not indicate what information the result includes or how invalid selectors are handled.
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 single parameter has 100% schema description coverage, including all accepted selector formats and a pointer to orca_worktree_list for exact values. The description adds no selector syntax or format guidance beyond the schema, so the 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 gives a clear verb/resource pair ('Show full details of one worktree') and distinguishes single-worktree retrieval from list-style siblings through 'one worktree.' It does not explicitly name or contrast with orca_worktree_list, but the scope is understandable.
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?
Usage is only implied: 'one worktree' suggests it is for retrieving a single known worktree, while the sibling orca_worktree_list is for listing. It does not explicitly say when to use this versus orca_worktree_list or orca_worktree_ps, nor does it state prerequisites for a valid selector.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.