git_create_branch

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool creates and switches to a new branch and requires write mode, but it does not explain error handling (e.g., branch already exists), side effects of switching, or other behavioral traits.

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 two sentences, front-loading the core action and adding a critical prerequisite. Every sentence serves a clear purpose with no waste.

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's simplicity (2 parameters, exists output schema), the description is still incomplete. It lacks parameter details and deeper behavioral context (e.g., how switching works with uncommitted changes), which an agent needs for correct invocation.

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 0% and the description adds no meaning to the parameters (repo_path, branch_name). The agent gets no guidance on format, default behavior, or relationship between parameters.

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 action ('Create and switch to a new branch') with a specific verb and resource, and this tool is distinct from sibling git tools (e.g., git_commit, git_diff) that handle different operations.

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 a prerequisite ('Requires local git write mode') but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or when not to use it. Usage context is implied but not elaborated.

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