validate_branch_name

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

Discloses read-only nature and return structure (overall status + per-check results). No annotations exist, so description covers key behavioral aspects. Could mention config handling implications but not 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?

Concise: one summary sentence, usage guidance, and parameter list. Front-loaded with purpose. No unnecessary words.

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 optional parameters, output schema existence, and sibling context, description covers usage, parameters, and return value adequately. No gaps.

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 has 0% description coverage; description thoroughly explains each parameter's purpose and default behavior (e.g., branch auto-detected if omitted, config as inline JSON).

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?

Clear verb 'validate' and specific resource 'branch name conventions'. Distinguishes from siblings by mentioning combined validation alternative.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (verify branch name follows conventions) and when not (use validate_commit_context for combined checks). Includes parameter behavior details.

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