emacs_git_branch_checkout

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It merely says 'Checkout a branch' without disclosing that switching branches changes the working state, that the create parameter can make a new branch, or what happens if the branch does not exist. This is a state-changing operation, so the lack of behavioral detail is a meaningful gap.

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 a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, but it is under-specified—omitting the create parameter and any context—making it less useful than a slightly longer but more informative description.

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?

The tool is simple (two parameters, one required) and the schema covers the parameters, so basic invocation is possible. However, the description doesn't mention the create behavior or the side effects of switching branches, and there is no output schema or additional context to fill that gap.

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 both 'branch' and 'create' are already documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond restating the target branch, but with full schema coverage the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Checkout') and resource ('a branch'), which clearly identifies the git checkout action. However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like emacs_git_branch_list or emacs_git_branch_current, and doesn't mention the tool's ability to create a branch.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus other git operations such as listing branches or viewing the current branch. The agent is given no exclusions or alternative routing cues, so it must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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