git_worktree_current

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It's a read operation and describes the return fields, which helps, but it doesn't disclose permissions, error conditions, or side effects. For a zero-parameter query tool this is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and return values, followed by usage context. No redundancy.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description helpfully lists the fields returned. It covers the main contract but lacks details on error handling or how the parsed ticket/slug is derived. Complete enough for a simple query tool.

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 100%, and the single parameter repoPath is fully documented in the schema. The description adds a bit of context about what worktree info is returned, but repeats some schema semantics. Baseline for high coverage with 1 param is 3; the added return-field enumeration lifts it slightly.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (current hop/git worktree context), and enumerates exactly what is returned (branch, path, dirty status, parsed ticket/slug). An agent can distinguish this read-only query from sibling worktree tools like git_worktree_list or git_worktree_create.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use it: to understand 'where am I?' and to enable resumability after context switches or retries. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the use case is well-defined.

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