inspect_worktree_topology

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits: it only summarizes (read-only) and intentionally avoids exposing specific Git details. It also implies local-only operation via the cwd parameter description. However, it does not mention output format, error behavior, or explicit non-mutation, so it is 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 a single, well-organized sentence that front-loads the primary action and then lists constraints and exclusions. No redundant information; every clause adds value.

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?

With one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the tool's scope and safety characteristics. It could mention the return format or that the operation is non-mutating, but the current text covers the core purpose and constraints sufficiently for a simple read-only summarization tool.

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 for the only parameter (cwd) is 100%, so the schema already documents that it is a local Git repository path. The description reinforces 'local' and adds a no-network-access detail, but this is minimal added meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 summarizes local Git worktree topology and enumerates specific aspects (clean/dirty state, detached worktrees, locks, prunable entries). It also explicitly lists what it does not expose (paths, branch names, hashes, remotes, content), which fully distinguishes its purpose.

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 context: it is for safe, local-only inspection without leaking sensitive information. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, which prevents a 5 since there are no sibling tools to differentiate against.

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