Branch Risk Analysis

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries a lower burden. It adds context about what the analysis covers (stale, diverged, merge-risk branches) and the repo_path condition. No contradictions.

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 lean and front-loaded: first sentence summarizes the tool, second expands on findings, third is a conditional note. Every sentence earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description could detail the return format, but it clearly states what the tool identifies. Annotations cover safety, and parameters are well-documented in schema. Slightly incomplete on output, but adequate.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter info beyond the schema (only repeats the repo_path condition). No added value for base_branch or include_remote.

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 specific verbs ('Analyze', 'Identifies') and clearly states the resource ('all branches'). It covers staleness, divergence, and merge risk, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'hotspots' or 'churn'.

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 includes a conditional guideline about repo_path, but does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or state when to use this tool over others (e.g., 'risk_assessment'). Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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