Code MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but provides minimal information. It mentions three actions but doesn't describe what 'list' returns (branch names, current branch marker, remote tracking info), whether 'create' validates branch existence, what happens when switching branches with uncommitted changes, or any error conditions. For a multi-action tool with mutation capabilities, this is insufficient.

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 extremely concise at just four words, which is efficient for conveying basic scope. However, it's arguably too terse for a tool with three distinct actions and mutation capabilities. While front-loaded, it lacks the structure to guide proper usage.

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 tool with three distinct actions (including mutations like create and switch), no annotations, no output schema, and multiple parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, behavioral differences between actions, or how it interacts with the Git repository state. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without trial and error.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't clarify what values 'action' accepts, what format 'name' should use, or what 'cwd' defaults to. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the documentation work.

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 'List, create, or switch branches' restates the tool name 'git_branch' in slightly expanded form, making it tautological. It doesn't specify what resource it operates on (Git repository branches) or distinguish it from sibling Git tools like git_status or git_log that also provide branch-related information.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing a Git repository), when to prefer git_status for current branch info, or when git_checkout might be a better alternative for switching branches. The description offers only basic functional scope without contextual guidance.

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