checkout_branch

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only hints at mutation with 'optionally creating it' but does not explain side effects, such as whether uncommitted changes are blocked, what happens if the branch already exists, or whether the repository is modified locally.

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 sentence, front-loaded, with no filler. It is concise and to the point, though it sacrifices detail that would be necessary for complete understanding.

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 absence of annotations, an output schema, and detailed parameter descriptions, this tool with 3 parameters is drastically under-specified. The description provides almost no context about behavior, return values, or constraints, making it inadequate for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 0%, and the description does not clarify the parameters beyond the obvious. 'Optionally creating it' vaguely maps to `create_new`, but `repo_path` and `branch` are left undefined in terms of format or constraints.

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 clearly states the action ('Switch to a branch') and the resource (branch), with an additional capability ('optionally creating it'). It is specific and distinguishes itself from sibling tools that focus on listing or comparing branches.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are prerequisites mentioned (e.g., clean working tree, branch existence). The description implies usage by stating the action but lacks any context on appropriate conditions or alternatives.

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