branch

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

No annotations provided, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses persistence ('Persists to SQLite') and independence ('Each branch maintains its own thought sequence'). It does not mention any side effects or permissions, but the behavior is clear enough for safe use.

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?

Four concise sentences, each adding essential information. Front-loaded with the primary action. No redundant or filler words.

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?

No output schema, but the description fully explains what happens (creates, switches, persists, maintains sequence). References sibling tools for further actions. Complete for a creation tool with two parameters.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions 'branchId' as a short identifier and 'reason' as why branching, which aligns with schema descriptions. No additional value beyond confirming purpose.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create a new reasoning branch and switch to it') and clearly identifies the resource and action. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by mentioning 'explore an alternative approach without affecting the main thread' and referencing close_branch and merge_branch.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use context ('explore an alternative approach without affecting the main thread') and how subsequent calls work ('Subsequent think calls go to this branch until you switch_branch'). Also directs when to use alternatives ('Use close_branch when a path is exhausted, or merge_branch to bring insights back').

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