Creates a directory and any missing parent directories on a specified branch, then checkpoints the workspace; existing directories are treated as a no-op.
Create a directory and its parents on a branch, then checkpoint. An existing directory is a no-op.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| branch | Yes | ||
| message | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare a non-readonly, non-destructive, open-world mutation, and the description adds real behavioral detail beyond them: recursive parent creation and an automatic checkpoint side effect. One ambiguity remains — it is unclear whether the checkpoint still fires when the directory already exists, which sits in mild tension with idempotentHint=false.
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?
Two short sentences, no filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the no-op caveat. Every clause carries information.
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 three-parameter mutating tool with no annotations on parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description covers the action and one edge case but omits the meaning of 'message', the side effect of checkpointing on the branch history, and any return information. It is callable but not fully specified.
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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning and largely does not. It implies the path semantics (directory plus parents) but says nothing about the absolute-path requirement encoded in the pattern, what 'branch' refers to, or that 'message' is presumably the checkpoint/commit message.
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 and resource ('Create a directory and its parents') plus the scoping dimension ('on a branch'), which is enough for an agent to distinguish it from layerfs_fs_write, layerfs_fs_cp, and layerfs_fs_rm. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.
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?
Usage is only implied by the operation itself; there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over fs_write (which could also create paths) or fs_cp. The 'existing directory is a no-op' clause gives a small amount of decision-relevant context but no alternatives or exclusions are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.