git_new_branch

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose full behavioral traits. It mentions the write operations (create, push) but lacks details on preconditions (e.g., branch existence), failure modes, or side effects (e.g., checkout). The token savings mention is a benefit, not a behavioral trait.

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 concise with two sentences, no unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating the main action from the benefit). It earns its 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's complexity (4 parameters, write operations, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is too minimal. It omits critical information such as return values, error handling, and specific behaviors like whether the branch is checked out.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., the 'push' parameter is described in both). The token savings remark does not relate to parameters.

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 ('Create a new branch') and the additional behavior ('push to all configured remotes'), with the unique benefit of saving tokens. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like git_archive_repo or git_import_repo.

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 description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state prerequisites or conditions that might preclude its use. It only implies usage for branch creation with automatic push.

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