emacs_git_branch_current

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

The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation with no side effects, and the description makes the purpose plain. However, with no annotations, nothing is disclosed about error behavior (e.g., outside a git repository) or how the repository is resolved.

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?

Five words, front-loaded with the action and object, no filler. Every token earns its place.

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?

For a no-argument getter this is close to sufficient: an agent knows no inputs are needed and the output is the current branch name. But with no output schema or annotations, the description leaves 'current' repository scope implicit and says nothing about failure modes, making it minimally viable rather than complete.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. Baseline 4 applies because the schema is complete and there is nothing for the description to compensate for.

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 the exact resource 'current branch name', which clearly distinguishes this from siblings like git_branch_list and git_branch_checkout. It does not spell out the repository scope, but the meaning is direct and unambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to choose this vs git_branch_list or git_branch_checkout, nor what 'current' refers to. The intended use is inferable from the name, but the description offers no explicit context or exclusions.

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