tea_pr_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 of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention that checking out a pull request locally likely modifies the local git working directory, creates branches, or could conflict with existing branches. This is a significant gap for a mutating operation.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the essential action and resource. There is zero wasted wording, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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 mutating nature (local git state), the lack of annotations and output schema, and only a one-line description, the tool is under-specified. It does not explain what 'checkout' entails (e.g., branch creation, potential conflicts), which is important context for an agent using this tool correctly.

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%: the schema already describes 'repo' as the repository path or slug with a default, and 'index' as the pull request number. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond that, so 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 'Checkout a pull request locally' clearly states the action (checkout) and the resource (a pull request), with a specific scope (locally). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like tea_pr_view or tea_pr_merge, which perform different operations on pull requests.

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 that this tool is used when one wants to check out a pull request locally, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The context of sibling PR tools suggests it is the only checkout operation, but no explicit guidance is provided.

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