git_create_branch

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden but only states 'creates a new branch'. It does not disclose key behaviors: whether the tool switches to the new branch, what happens if the branch already exists, or any side effects like modifying the working tree. This leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise (one sentence) with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, the brevity sacrifices critical details that could be provided without significant length.

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 tool has three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to provide a complete picture. It omits return value format, error conditions, prerequisites (e.g., repo state), and post-conditions. This leaves the agent underinformed for reliable invocation.

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?

The input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies. No additional context is provided for parameters like 'start_point' format or defaults.

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 ('creates') and the resource ('a new branch'), which is specific enough to convey the primary function. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like git_checkout which can also create branches with the -b flag, missing an opportunity to clarify distinction.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., git_checkout for creating and switching). There are no examples or context about prerequisites, such as requiring a clean working tree or that the branch name must be new.

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