fork_branch

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

The description adds some behavioral context by explaining the flags (create_target_if_missing, overwrite_target, is_default) in the Args block, but it does not disclose side effects, permissions, or broader implications. With no annotations, the description carries the burden, yet it remains limited.

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 reasonably concise with a clear opening sentence and a structured parameter list. However, the Args block largely duplicates the input schema, making it somewhat redundant and not as tight as it could be.

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 moderately complex branch fork operation, the description covers core parameters and their effects. It doesn't address conflicts, permissions, or migration behavior, but the presence of an output schema makes detailed return documentation unnecessary. Overall, it is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Although the schema has 0% description coverage, the description includes a parameter list with brief but meaningful explanations for each argument, such as 'Создать целевую ветку, если её нет.' (Create target branch if missing). This compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions, though not extensively.

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 tool's function: 'Создать ветку из другой ветки (fork) в проекте' (Create a branch from another branch (fork) in the project). It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from the sibling create_branch by emphasizing 'from another branch'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_branch or merge_branches. It simply describes the action without any context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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