worktree_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the scoping context ('known to a workspace or repository') but nothing about ordering, pagination, or what a 'known' worktree means.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Appropriately sized for a simple read-only list tool, though it leaves little room for the missing parameter guidance.

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?

The output schema will describe return values and annotations cover safety, so the main gap is parameter meaning. For a tool whose two optional params are entirely undocumented, the description should do more to explain cwd vs workspace_id.

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%, so both optional parameters (cwd, workspace_id) are undocumented anywhere. The phrase 'workspace or repository' loosely hints at workspace_id and perhaps a repo path via cwd, but it does not explain the semantics of either parameter or whether they are alternatives or combinable.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List git worktrees') and scopes it to a workspace or repository, which separates it from worktree_create. It does not explicitly name the sibling, but the read vs create distinction is clear.

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 scope phrase implies when to use it (inspecting worktrees in a workspace/repo context), but it gives no explicit when-to-use, exclusions, or guidance about picking between cwd and workspace_id. The agent must infer that worktree_create is the alternative for creating.

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