pleach_branch

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states that the operation copies the transcript under a new id, indicating non-destructive behavior, and discloses the return value (session id and resume command). This is meaningful context beyond a simple 'fork' statement, though it omits potential failure modes or prerequisites.

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 that leads with the core action, includes a precise parenthetical clarifying the copy behavior, and states the output. Every word contributes, with no wasted content.

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 tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description provides the essential context: what it does, how it behaves (copies transcript), and what it returns. Minor gaps include potential branch naming collisions or behavior when the session does not exist, but these are not critical for basic use.

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 covers all three parameters with descriptions (cwd, name, session), so the schema is doing the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, placing it at the baseline 3.

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 uses a specific verb+resource: 'Fork a session into a new tracked branch' and further clarifies the mechanism ('copies the transcript under a new id'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like pleach_log, pleach_show, and pleach_grep, which are read-only 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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when you want to branch a session into a new tracked copy. However, it provides no explicit exclusions or alternative tool references (e.g., when to prefer pleach_merge or pleach_name), so it stops short of full guidance.

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