Git checkout

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

The description adds a behavioral trait beyond the annotations by stating 'Refuses on dirty tree,' which tells the agent the tool will fail under uncommitted changes. This is valuable safety information. However, it does not explain other side effects beyond the destructiveHint, and the '-b' reference introduces ambiguity about how creation is triggered.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the action first, then the safety constraint. Every word earns its place. However, the '-b' phrasing is cryptic and slightly inconsistent with the structured 'create' boolean, preventing a perfect score.

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 tool with three parameters, two required, treated as destructive, the description is too sparse. It omits the meaning of 'path', the relationship between '-b' and 'create', and the post-condition after checkout. The output schema exists but the description still leaves key invocation details unresolved, so an agent cannot reliably call this tool without external git knowledge.

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 the description must carry the burden of explaining parameters. It hints at 'create' via '-b' and implies 'branch' is the target, but the required 'path' parameter is never defined. There is no explanation of what path refers to or what formats are accepted, making correct invocation difficult.

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 states the core action: 'Checkout branch' with an optional creation flag, which is a specific verb and resource. It's distinguishable from siblings like git_brach or git_show, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The phrasing 'create with -b' is slightly inconsistent with the schema's 'create' boolean, which somewhat blurs the clarity.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like git_brach, git_reset, or git_merge. The only conditional statement, 'Refuses on dirty tree,' is a failure condition, not a usage directive. An agent receives no hints about prerequisites or which sibling to prefer.

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