ecosystem_branch_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal a side effect: 'Trazable: registra la operación en AGENT_SESSION_LOG' (records the operation in AGENT_SESSION_LOG), which is useful. However, it omits critical behaviors such as what happens if the branch already exists, whether it checks out the branch, or any permission requirements. The mutation is not fully characterized.

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 a single sentence with a brief traceability note, front-loaded with the core action. It is extremely concise with no wasted words, earning the maximum score for structure and size.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic creation and logging aspect but does not address error handling, preconditions (e.g., whether the ecosystem must be initialized), or post-conditions. Given the lack of supplementary structured data, it could have provided more context.

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 clarifies the 'name' parameter by showing it becomes part of the branch name template `ecosystem/{name}`, which the schema does not describe. For 'base', it reinforces the default and matches the schema's description. This adds meaning beyond the schema, especially since schema coverage is only 50%.

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 function: 'Crea la branch `ecosystem/{name}` desde `base`' (Creates the branch ecosystem/{name} from base). It specifies the exact resource (branch) and action (create), distinguishing it from sibling tools like ecosystem_merge_main or ecosystem_init.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions the default base and traceability but does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or contrast with sibling tools. It provides no context like 'use this for new feature branches' or 'do not use if the branch already exists.'

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