git-cherry-pick

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

No annotations provided, so description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'apply changes', omitting details like conflict handling, that a new commit is created, or what happens if the commit is already in the branch. Lacks sufficient behavioral context.

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?

Single sentence, no redundancy, front-loaded with verb and resource. Perfectly concise for a simple operation.

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 and standard complexity, the description is minimally adequate. It doesn't explain return values or error scenarios (e.g., conflict resolution). Sufficient for a basic understanding but not complete.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions (directory default, commitHash required). Adequate but no added value.

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 states the action and resource ('apply changes from a specific commit to the current branch'). The verb 'apply' and specific resource commit+current branch make purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like merge or rebase.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., git-merge, git-rebase). Usage is implied (when you want a specific commit) but no exclusions or context provided.

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