get_forks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It explains that fork points represent branchings from retries/edits and identifies primary vs. abandoned branches. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, required permissions, or output structure, though the tool appears read-only by name.

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 concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and includes a clear Args section. Every sentence serves a purpose without excessive verbosity.

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 the existence of an output schema, return value descriptions are unnecessary. The tool's purpose, branch behavior, and parameter roles are sufficiently described. Slight gap: no usage guidance relative to siblings, but that is covered under the usage dimension.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description provides meaningful explanations for all three parameters: session_id (UUID or prefix), project (optional slug), and fork_uuid (specific fork point or all). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states 'Get fork points in a session with diverging branch details' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on branch/fork history rather than session lists, trees, or threads.

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?

Describes what the tool does and shows branch details, implying use when fork information is needed, but does not explicitly state when it should be used over alternatives or when to avoid it. No exclusion criteria or comparison to sibling tools like get_thread or get_tree.

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