git-checkout

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

Without annotations, the description partially explains behavior (switching, creating), but does not mention side effects like potential loss of uncommitted changes, directory handling beyond default, or error conditions. This is minimal disclosure.

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, efficient sentence. It conveys the essential action without redundancy, though a slightly structured format could improve clarity (e.g., separate create vs. switch cases).

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 the simplicity of the tool (3 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the basic purpose. However, it omits return value, error handling, and directory behavior details, making it just 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 each parameter has a description. The tool description adds little beyond mentioning 'creates and switches', which loosely maps to createNew. No extra meaning or constraints are provided.

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 indicates the tool switches to a branch or creates and switches to a new branch. It distinguishes the core function from sibling tools like git-branch or git-merge, but lacks specificity about the createNew parameter's role.

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 on when to use this tool vs. siblings such as git-branch for creation or git-switch for switching. The description does not provide context or alternatives, leaving selection ambiguous.

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