Git worktree create

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about isolation and the .worktrees/ directory, but omits behavioral details such as whether the branch must already exist, whether the worktree is created relative to the current checkout, or any possible side effects on existing workspace state.

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?

A single clear, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning: 'isolated', the location, and the intended use case are all present.

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, has an output schema, and annotations cover the destructive nature. However, the 0% parameter coverage and the absence of usage guidance leave notable gaps. An agent could likely call it correctly, but may guess about path/branch semantics or about the appropriate workflow context.

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%, yet the description does not compensate. It only hints at the path by mentioning .worktrees/, but provides no explanation of what 'path' should be, whether 'branch' is an existing branch or a new branch name, or how the two parameters relate to each other.

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 a specific verb ('Create'), a precise resource ('an isolated worktree'), and a clear location ('under .worktrees/'). This makes the tool easily distinguishable from siblings like git_worktree_list and git_worktree_remove without opening any schema.

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 phrase 'for agent work' implies use when an isolated worktree is desired, but the description gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like git_checkout, git_branch, or git_worktree_list. No exclusions or alternative conditions are stated.

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