git_branch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the scope ('local repository') and implies a non-mutating operation via 'List', but it never states read-only status explicitly, does not explain what 'inspect' returns or how it differs from plain listing, and gives no side-effect or permission context.

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 short sentence with the core action front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity is part of why behavioral and usage gaps remain.

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?

This is a simple two-parameter, no-required-arg tool with no output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, with no annotations to lean on, it leaves 'inspect' undefined and omits any safety or scope detail that an agent would want before invoking it.

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% ('all' maps to git branch --all, 'cwd' is a working directory path), so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about either parameter, but the baseline of 3 applies when the schema is fully documented.

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 gives a specific verb(s) and resource: listing/inspecting branches in the local repository. It implicitly separates itself from mutating siblings like git_switch and git_checkout by framing the action as read-oriented, but it never names those siblings to make the distinction explicit.

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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, even though git_switch and git_checkout sit right next to it in the sibling list. The read-only framing of 'List or inspect' hints at intended use, but nothing steers the agent away from the branch-changing tools.

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