Branch name

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It shows one example output but doesn't disclose edge-case behavior (e.g., slugification rules, truncation, handling of special characters). The schema mentions truncation for maxLength, but the description itself doesn't add behavioral context beyond the example.

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, information-dense sentence followed by a high-value example. Every word earns its place, and the example greatly improves comprehension without extra fluff.

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 straightforward generation tool with an output schema, the description covers the core functionality and output format via example. It doesn't explain the exact convention rules in detail, but the example sufficiently conveys the expected behavior for most use cases.

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?

The schema already provides 100% parameter coverage with detailed descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by showing how type, id, and title combine in the example, but it doesn't elaborate on maxLength or separator beyond what the schema states.

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 ('Generate') and resource ('git branch name'), clearly stating the inputs (change type, ticket id, title). The concrete example disambiguates the exact behavior and distinguishes it from sibling tools like commit_message and pr_checklist.

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 makes it obvious when to use this tool (any time a branch name is needed) and provides an example that shows the transformation. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling tools serve clearly different purposes, so the usage context is clear without exclusions.

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