hop_start

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: it creates an isolated directory, explicitly does NOT switch branches, auto-names from the ticket ID, and supports a preview via dryRun (documented in schema). It omits error/permission behavior and what happens if the target already exists, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the no-branch-switch benefit, then the ticket-ID usage. The trailing 'IMPORTANT' sentence prescribing user-facing dialogue is somewhat conversational and agent-prescriptive, but still earns its place as usage guidance.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description could say more about the return value (branch name/path), but the schema's dryRun note partially covers this. For a 6-parameter creation tool with no annotations, the definition covers purpose, side effects, and next steps adequately.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description echoes the ticket-ID example and auto-naming behavior already fully documented in the schema, adding no syntax or format detail beyond it.

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 — 'Start a new hop (git worktree) for a ticket or feature' — and immediately defines 'hop' as a git worktree, so an agent understands the operation. However, with a sibling `git_worktree_create` that appears to do the same thing, the description offers no differentiation between the two, leaving a real ambiguity unresolved.

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 clear context for use ('parallel development without switching branches') and even prescribes follow-up routing to 'hop to' and 'hop open' alternatives. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance (e.g., when to use `git_worktree_create` instead, or behavior when the worktree already exists).

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