Creates an active coding task in a clean detached Git worktree based on the repository's HEAD, providing an isolated environment for remote development.
Create an ACTIVE coding task in a clean detached Git worktree based on source HEAD.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| repo_path | Yes | Path inside the source Git repository |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0-dev.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool creates a 'clean detached Git worktree' and that the task is 'ACTIVE' and based on 'source HEAD', which conveys key behavioral context. However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., whether existing worktrees are affected) or required permissions, but the core action is clearly described.
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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently states the purpose and key environment details. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary information.
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 tool is relatively simple (one parameter, no output schema), and the description provides enough for an agent to know what the tool does. However, it lacks usage guidance (when to call it vs. alternatives) and does not mention any prerequisites or side effects beyond the worktree creation, making it only partially complete for fully informed 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?
The schema has one parameter (repo_path) with a description ('Path inside the source Git repository'), giving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds context that the worktree is based on source HEAD, but it does not significantly expand on the meaning of repo_path beyond what the schema already states. Thus, it meets the baseline without substantial added value.
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 purpose: creating an ACTIVE coding task in a clean detached Git worktree based on source HEAD. The verb 'create' combined with the specific resource ('coding task') and environment details distinguishes it from sibling task operations like resume, finish, and cancel.
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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While sibling names suggest different lifecycle stages, the description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions (e.g., when to use task.resume instead).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.