git_worktree_open

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does disclose a meaningful side effect—launching a new Cursor window—which is beyond the name. However, it omits prerequisites (Cursor installed/running), failure behavior, or whether an existing window is reused.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the mechanism, then the usage cue. Minor redundancy between 'Open a hop' and 'Launches a new Cursor window,' but nothing wasted.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description must carry the load. It covers purpose and trigger, but all five parameters are optional and the schema only vaguely states that slug is 'combined with ticket,' leaving the description silent on which identifying combination is actually required to resolve a worktree.

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 schema already documents all five parameters, making 3 the baseline. The description adds only a loose hint via 'ticket/worktree' and does not explain how to choose among slug, branch, ticket, repoPath, or worktreePath.

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 and resource ('Open a hop (git worktree) in Cursor IDE') and clarifies the mechanism ('Launches a new Cursor window at the worktree path'). It does not differentiate from closely named siblings like hop_open or hop_start, so the agent cannot fully disambiguate from the name alone.

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?

Gives a clear triggering condition: 'Use this when user wants to edit files in Cursor for a specific ticket/worktree.' It does not state when-not-to-use it or name an alternative sibling (e.g., hop_open), but the usage context is unambiguous.

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