git_criar_branch

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the two side effects (creating a branch and moving HEAD to it), which is real value, but says nothing about failure modes, whether an existing branch name errors out, or what state is left behind.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with zero filler, and the primary action is front-loaded. It is appropriately terse, though the brevity leans toward under-specification rather than economy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, but with no annotations, 0% parameter coverage, and no mention of the two required inputs, the definition is too thin for a mutating git operation. It should at least identify what 'pasta' and 'nome' mean.

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 neither parameter is mentioned in the description. 'nome' (branch name) and 'pasta' (repository folder path) are undocumented in both places, leaving the agent to guess meaning, format, and naming conventions.

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 specific verb and resource ('Cria uma branch nova') and adds the resulting state change ('muda para ela'), so an agent knows this is a branch-create-plus-checkout operation. It does not name or contrast itself with any sibling, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no note on prerequisites (clean working tree, existing branch name collisions), and no routing to or away from siblings such as git_pull, git_merge, or git_commit. The agent must infer entirely when this tool is appropriate.

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