uvcs_branch_safety_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'Read-only helper' framing is largely redundant. It adds the useful behavioral cue that this is a pre-flight aggregate check, but says nothing about output shape, freshness, or cost beyond what the schema and annotations provide.

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 zero filler: it names the nature of the tool, the data it returns, and the trigger condition in order of importance.

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 zero-required-parameter read-only reporting tool with strong annotations, the description conveys enough: it enumerates what is reported and when to invoke it. No output schema exists, and the description only sketches the return contents, so it is complete enough but not exhaustive.

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 100% and both parameters are fully documented (default branch, 1-50 changeset range). The description reinforces which data is inspected but adds no format or semantics beyond the schema, so 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 ('reports') with three concrete resources (current branch, pending changes, recent changesets) and frames it as a read-only safety helper. It distinguishes the aggregate nature implicitly, though it never names the closely related siblings (uvcs_branch_info, uvcs_pending_changes) that cover the same data individually.

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?

Gives a clear usage context: 'before risky branch, merge, or cleanup work' - an agent knows when to reach for it. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions, so it is clear context but not full when/when-not guidance.

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