Create a policy-compliant branch for this task

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

destructiveHint=true is already declared, and the description aligns with it rather than contradicting it by disclosing the safety default: 'dry_run=True by default' and 'When dry_run=False, checks it out.' This adds real context beyond the annotation — destructiveness is conditional and off by default. It also truthfully discloses that 'nothing enforces that the caller actually uses' the returned commit title.

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?

Roughly four sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every line earns its place — the git checkout -b comparison and the commit-title caveat add genuine value. The final line packs the commit_type list and dry_run default densely but remains readable.

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 description covers purpose, the two key inputs, the conditional destructive behavior, and even the returned commit title, so the existing output schema need not be elaborated. The remaining hole is the scope parameter — what it maps to in the branch name — which is a minor gap for a moderate-complexity 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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and largely delivers: it enumerates the allowed commit_type values (feat|fix|chore|docs|refactor|test|ci|perf|style|build), which the schema omits as an enum, and explains dry_run's effect and default. The one gap is scope, a nullable string whose role in the branch name is never clarified.

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 opens with a concrete action — 'Derive a compliant branch name from a type + description' — and names the exact resource (branch) plus the two key inputs. The title reinforces it as a branch-creation tool, and 'Use instead of git checkout -b' explicitly separates it from the standard git approach. None of the many rrt_* siblings competes as a branch-creation tool, so the purpose stands clearly on its own.

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?

'Use instead of git checkout -b with a hand-written name' gives the agent an explicit, actionable comparator that selects this tool over a common alternative. It also prescribes a follow-on usage by returning a Conventional Commit title 'to use for the first commit.' It stops short of exclusions — no guidance on when not to use it, such as when a branch already exists.

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