git_checkout

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It implies a workspace mutation but says nothing about uncommitted-change risk, failure modes, permission needs, or whether a new branch is cut from the current HEAD — all material for a checkout.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficiently sized for the operation, though it leaves obvious room to state the risky case in the same breath.

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 2-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally viable. It omits the operational caveats (dirty working tree, detached HEAD) that an agent would want before invoking a checkout.

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%, with 'branch' and 'createNew' both documented inline, so the schema already does the work. The description adds nothing about parameter interaction (e.g., createNew overriding branch selection), so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb pair ('switch to' / 'create a new branch') and the resource (branch), which is enough for an agent to recognize the operation. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like git_pull or git_status, so it falls short of the 5 tier.

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?

The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. It never says that createNew=true is required to create a branch, nor when switching is preferable to pulling or checking status first.

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