verify_worktree

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait — that the call can succeed with canonical paths or fail with a refusal reason — but it omits whether the operation is read-only, what permissions it needs, and what conditions trigger a refusal.

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 compact sentence with the verb and outcome front-loaded. Nothing is wasted, though the sentence tries to carry purpose and return contract at once.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage mean the description must do more than this. It never explains the refusal conditions, path format expectations, or read-only nature of the operation, which are exactly the gaps structured data leaves open.

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% for both required parameters. The description implies 'path' is a worktree path and 'branch' must be 'exact', which adds some meaning, but it never explains format, matching semantics, or what happens when the branch does not match.

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 (verify) and resource (linked worktree and its exact branch), and even names the outcome shape (canonical paths or refusal reason). It does not, however, distinguish itself from neighboring tools like git_root or check, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as git_root or check, and no prerequisites or preconditions are given. The only guidance is implicit in the word 'verify'.

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