Prepare feature workflow

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It lists the main actions (check status, update main, create branch) and exclusions, but lacks details on side effects such as whether it fetches, requires a clean working tree, or how it handles conflicts. This is adequate but not fully transparent.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for actions and one for exclusions. Every word adds value, and the key information is front-loaded. No unnecessary repetition or filler.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and full parameter documentation in the schema, the description adequately covers the workflow. It does not describe return values or error conditions, but since there is no output schema, the description is sufficient for a user to understand the tool's behavior.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all four parameters, so the schema already provides parameter semantics. The tool description does not add meaningful information beyond what is in the schema, earning a baseline score of 3.

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 clearly states the tool checks status, updates main, and creates a new feature branch, and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by noting it does not push or create a PR. The verb 'prepare' plus the listed actions and exclusions make the purpose 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?

The description implies usage when you want to prepare a feature branch locally without pushing or creating a PR. It clearly states what the tool does and does not do, offering context for when to use it, but does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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