herdr_worktree_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context: return values (workspace_id, root_pane.pane_id) and a potential retry condition for agent.start. However, it does not discuss side effects such as repository mutation, permissions, or reversibility, which are important for a creation tool.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by return values and a practical caveat. Every sentence contributes unique information with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool is moderately complex (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations). The description covers the core action, return values, and a specific edge case. However, it lacks details on how the workspace/agent integration works and does not explicitly explain the role of optional parameters like base or focus, though these are documented in the schema.

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 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, only referencing the overall purpose. This matches the baseline of 3 for full schema coverage.

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 states a specific action: 'Create a git worktree and open it as a herdr workspace.' It clearly identifies the resource (git worktree) and the effect (opening it as a workspace). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like herdr_worktree_list and herdr_worktree_remove.

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 implies when to use this tool (when a new worktree and workspace are needed) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions relative to sibling tools. No guidance is given on when not to use it or what other tools might be more appropriate.

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