git_checkout

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits like side effects (e.g., losing uncommitted changes), but it only covers execution timing. The actual effect of the checkout operation is not described.

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 concise (4 sentences) but poorly structured: it starts with the tool name and immediately discusses timing, without a clear purpose statement. Could be reorganized to front-load the action.

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 description is highly incomplete given the 8 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and the existence of an output schema. The core git checkout semantics are absent, making the tool's behavior unclear.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It explains the timing parameters (expected_runtime_seconds, etc.) but neglects core parameters ref, path, and create. This is insufficient for an 8-parameter tool.

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 does not explicitly state the primary action of git checkout (e.g., switching branches, restoring files). It focuses on execution timing options, leaving the agent to infer the purpose from the tool name alone, which is insufficient for a diverse sibling set.

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 guidance on how to set timing parameters but does not specify when to use this tool over sibling tools like git_create_branch or git_restore. No contextual when-to-use or alternatives are mentioned.

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