df_checkout

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state a meaningful behavior: it verifies there are no un-pushed changes before switching. However, it does not explain what happens if such changes exist, whether it discards or preserves working tree changes, or what the tool returns. This adds partial transparency but leaves key behaviors undisclosed.

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 consists of two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. It states the purpose first, then the behavioral check. Every word earns its place, making it appropriately sized and well structured.

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 has one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides the core purpose and a key precondition. However, it omits error behavior (e.g., what if un-pushed changes exist or the branch is not found), return values, and side effects on the working tree. It is minimally adequate but not complete.

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 input schema fully documents the 'branch' parameter as 'Nombre de la rama' (branch name), so baseline is 3. The description adds the semantic restriction that the branch must be an existing one ('a una rama existente'), which is not present in the schema. This extra constraint enhances parameter understanding beyond 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 states a clear action, 'Cambiar a una rama existente' (switch to an existing branch), identifying the verb and resource. The qualifier 'existente' distinguishes it from branch creation, and the additional verification about un-pushed changes adds a specific behavior. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 implies usage when the user wants to switch to an existing branch, and the verification statement hints that a clean un-pushed state is expected. It does not mention alternative tools like df_push or df_branch, nor does it provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance. The guidance is mostly implicit.

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