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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it stages all changes (modified, deleted, new files), creates a commit with a message, auto-initializes repos, and returns either a SHA hash or a 'No changes to commit' message. It doesn't mention error cases or side effects like overwriting, but covers the core behavior adequately.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core action, followed by a metaphor ('save point'), bullet points for steps, and then parameter details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and it's structured for easy scanning with clear sections for Args and Returns.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a multi-step git operation), no annotations, and an output schema (implied by 'Returns' section), the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, behavior, parameters, and return values, addressing gaps from missing annotations. The output schema existence means it doesn't need to detail return formats further.

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 compensate fully. It adds significant meaning beyond the schema: it explains repo_path as 'the absolute path to the repository' and provides detailed guidance for message including common prefixes like 'feat:' and 'fix:'. This goes well beyond the basic schema, making parameters clear and actionable.

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 purpose with specific verbs ('stage ALL changes' and 'create a commit') and distinguishes it from siblings by emphasizing it handles 'ALL changes (including untracked files)' unlike more specific tools like get_repo_status or generate_commit_message. It explicitly names the equivalent git commands, making the action concrete.

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 clear context for when to use it ('as a "save point" for the project') and mentions it automatically initializes the repository if needed, which addresses a prerequisite. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or compare it to alternatives like using separate stage and commit tools, though the sibling list includes tools like get_repo_status that might be used first.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool 'generates a detailed comparison' and describes the output format, but lacks information about potential errors (e.g., invalid commit SHAs), performance considerations, or side effects. It adequately covers the basic behavior but misses deeper operational 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?

The description is well-structured with a clear opening sentence, bulleted use cases, and separate sections for arguments and returns. It is appropriately sized, though the bulleted list could be slightly condensed. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is mostly complete. It explains the purpose, usage, parameters, and output format. The output schema existence means the description doesn't need to detail return values, but it could benefit from mentioning error cases or prerequisites.

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 compensate. It adds meaningful semantics for all three parameters: 'repo_path' as 'absolute path', 'from_commit' as 'source (older) commit SHA', and 'to_commit' as 'target (newer) commit SHA'. This clarifies the order and nature of inputs beyond the bare schema.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('compare') and resource ('two commits'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'list_commits' or 'rollback_to_commit'. It explicitly mentions returning a diff, which is the core function.

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 clear context for when to use the tool ('reviewing changes between versions', 'debugging when a bug was introduced', 'generating a changelog'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's behavior (creates a branch pointer without switching), clarifies the default behavior for 'from_ref' (defaults to HEAD), and specifies the return format (confirmation message). However, it lacks details on error conditions or permissions required.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement, behavioral clarification, and organized parameter/return sections. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or wasted words, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, the description is largely complete: it covers purpose, usage, parameters, and returns. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to detail return values. However, it could benefit from mentioning potential errors (e.g., duplicate branch names) or prerequisites (e.g., valid repo path).

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?

Given 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing detailed semantics for all three parameters: 'repo_path' (absolute path), 'branch_name' (name with example), and 'from_ref' (commit SHA or branch name with default behavior). This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 specific action ('create a new git branch') and distinguishes it from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning that it does not switch to the branch, differentiating it from 'switch_branch'. The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('create a new branch pointer') and when not to use it ('DOES NOT switch to it'), with a clear alternative named ('switch_branch') for the subsequent action. This directly addresses sibling tool differentiation.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key traits: it analyzes staged and modified files, uses a template-based heuristic, and returns a suggested message (not performing the commit). It also details the two style options and their outputs. While it doesn't cover error handling or performance, it provides substantial behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence. Each subsequent section (note, usage, styles, args, returns) adds value without redundancy. There is no wasted text, and the structure is logical and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but with an output schema, the description is highly complete. It covers purpose, usage, behavioral traits, parameter semantics, and return values. The output schema handles return structure, so the description appropriately focuses on explaining what the tool does and how to use 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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It successfully adds meaning for both parameters: 'repo_path' is explained as 'The absolute path to the repository,' and 'style' is detailed with its default value, two format options ('conventional' and 'simple'), and examples of their outputs. This goes well beyond the bare schema.

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 purpose: 'Generate a suggested commit message based on staged changes.' It specifies the verb ('generate'), resource ('commit message'), and scope ('based on staged changes'), distinguishing it from siblings like commit_all_changes (which performs the commit) or compare_commits (which analyzes differences between commits).

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 clear context for when to use this tool: 'useful as a starting point or for quick commits.' It explains the tool's heuristic nature ('simple heuristic, not a full LLM analysis'), helping users understand its limitations. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by explaining what information is returned (initialization status, branch name, change status, file lists) and the JSON format. It doesn't mention error conditions, performance characteristics, or authentication needs, but provides substantial behavioral context for a read-only 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 well-structured with clear sections: purpose statement, bulleted list of what's included, usage guidelines, parameter documentation, return format, and example. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff. The information is front-loaded with the most important details first.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (single parameter, read-only operation), no annotations, but with output schema (implied by the example JSON), the description provides comprehensive context. It covers purpose, usage, parameters, return format, and example output, making it complete enough for an agent to understand and use the tool effectively.

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?

The description explicitly documents the single parameter 'repo_path' with clear semantics ('The absolute path to the repository'), compensating for the 0% schema description coverage. While it doesn't elaborate on path format requirements or validation, it provides essential context beyond the bare schema.

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 purpose with specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current status of the git repository'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it provides a 'snapshot' of repository state rather than performing operations like committing, branching, or comparing. It explicitly lists what information is included in the status report.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'before committing to verify what changes will be included' and 'to simply check the current context (branch, pending changes).' It implicitly distinguishes from siblings by focusing on status checking rather than mutation operations like commit_all_changes or create_branch.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and does so effectively. It describes the tool's behavior in detail: creating directories if needed, idempotent operation on existing repos, and the conditional creation of an initial commit with README.md. It doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, or error conditions, but covers core behavioral traits well.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. Each subsequent sentence earns its place by adding essential details about behavior, parameters, and return values without redundancy. The structured Args and Returns sections enhance readability while maintaining conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but with output schema), the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, behavior, parameter semantics, and return values comprehensively. The output schema exists, so the description doesn't need to detail return structure, and it adequately addresses all contextual aspects for effective agent use.

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 fully compensate, which it does excellently. It explains both parameters thoroughly: repo_path's absolute path requirement and directory creation behavior, and initial_commit's default value, conditionality, and effect on README.md. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 specific action ('Initialize a new git repository') and resource ('at the specified path'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like commit_all_changes or create_branch that operate on existing repositories. It precisely defines what the tool does without being vague or tautological.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('creates a .git directory at repo_path if it doesn't already exist') and mentions safe usage on existing repositories. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools, such as when to use get_repo_status instead for checking repository status.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that it 'shows all local branches with current branch marked', which adds some context about scope and output format. However, it lacks details on permissions needed, error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation, which is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by clear sections for arguments and returns. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. It covers the purpose, parameter meaning, and output format. However, it lacks behavioral details like error cases or prerequisites, which slightly reduces completeness.

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?

The description includes an 'Args' section that explains the single parameter 'repo_path' as 'Path to the repository directory', adding meaningful context beyond the schema's 0% coverage. This compensates well for the low schema coverage, though it doesn't specify format examples (e.g., absolute vs. relative paths).

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 purpose with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all branches in the repository'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_repo_status' or 'list_commits', which prevents a perfect score.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention when to prefer 'list_branches' over 'get_repo_status' for branch information or clarify if it's for local branches only versus remote ones, leaving usage context ambiguous.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's behavior: it retrieves a list of commits with specific details (SHA, message, author, timestamp), specifies defaults for parameters (branch defaults to 'HEAD', limit defaults to 50), and indicates the return format (JSON-formatted string). However, it does not mention potential limitations like rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose, followed by details on what is retrieved, and then structured sections for arguments and returns. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is complete enough. It covers the purpose, usage, parameter semantics, and return format. Since an output schema exists, it does not need to explain return values in detail, and the description adequately supplements the structured data.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate fully. It successfully adds meaning beyond the input schema by explaining each parameter: 'repo_path' as the absolute path to the repository, 'branch' as the branch name, tag, or commit SHA with a default, and 'limit' as the maximum number of commits with a default. This provides essential context not present in the schema.

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 specific action ('List the commit history') and resource ('for a specific branch or reference'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'list_branches' (which lists branches) and 'compare_commits' (which compares commits). It precisely defines what the tool does without ambiguity.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (to retrieve commit history from a branch or reference) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives. It implies usage for historical data retrieval but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to siblings like 'get_repo_status' or 'rollback_to_commit'.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and does so comprehensively. It explains the destructive nature of 'hard' mode with explicit warnings about permanent data loss, describes what happens to the working directory and index for each mode, and clarifies the default behavior. This goes well beyond what the input schema provides.

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 perfectly structured with a clear opening statement, organized bullet points for mode explanations, and separate sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or wasted words, making it easy to scan while remaining comprehensive.

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 complex, potentially destructive operation with 3 parameters and no annotations, the description provides complete context: purpose, detailed parameter semantics, behavioral implications of each mode, warnings about data loss, and confirmation of what's returned. The existence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to detail return format, allowing focus on the critical behavioral aspects.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description fully documents all three parameters with clear semantic meaning: repo_path as 'absolute path to the repository', commit_sha as 'full or short SHA', and mode with detailed explanations of each option's behavior. The description completely compensates for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 specific action ('roll back the repository state') and target resource ('to a previous commit'), distinguishing it from siblings like commit_all_changes or compare_commits. It precisely defines the verb+resource combination without ambiguity.

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 explicit guidance on when to use each mode: 'soft' for squashing commits or fixing messages, 'mixed' for keeping work but restarting staging, and 'hard' only when wanting to discard all work since the commit. It clearly distinguishes use cases and includes warnings about when NOT to use certain modes.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool updates the working directory and performs a 'git checkout', which implies mutation behavior. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects (e.g., uncommitted changes might be lost), permission requirements, or error conditions beyond the branch existence check.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, behavior, args, returns) and front-loaded the core purpose. It's appropriately sized, though the 'git checkout' mention could be considered slightly redundant with the main description. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description does a good job explaining parameters and basic behavior. The presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, for a mutation tool with no annotations, it could better address potential risks or side effects.

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 compensate fully. It successfully adds meaning beyond the bare schema by explaining both parameters: 'repo_path' as 'The absolute path to the repository' and 'branch_name' with the constraint 'The branch must already exist'. This provides crucial semantic context not in the schema.

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 specific action ('Switch the repository to a different branch') and the resource ('repository'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'create_branch' (which creates new branches) and 'list_branches' (which only lists them). The mention of 'git checkout' provides technical specificity.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('to switch to a different branch') and includes a prerequisite ('The branch must already exist'), which helps differentiate from 'create_branch'. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like 'rollback_to_commit' for different scenarios.

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