git_switch

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden, and it does disclose one real behavioral trait: git refuses when local changes would be overwritten. It never states that HEAD/working directory is mutated, what happens to uncommitted work, or the success/failure response shape.

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?

Two tight sentences with the action front-loaded and the safety caveat second. Nothing wasted, nothing buried.

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 needn't be explained, and purpose plus one safety rule are covered. But for a state-mutating git operation with no annotations and an undocumented 'repo' parameter, the definition is only minimally sufficient.

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 0%, so the description should compensate. It only weakly implies that 'name' is a branch name and gives no meaning at all for the 'repo' parameter (default '.'), leaving half the parameters undocumented everywhere.

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 (switch) and resource (existing branch). The word 'existing' implicitly distinguishes it from git_branch_create, but the sibling is never named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by 'switch to an existing branch', and the overwrite-refusal gives a constraint. There is no explicit routing such as 'use git_branch_create to make a new branch first', leaving the agent to infer the alternative.

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