worktrees-get

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

Discloses fuzzy matching for alias and required machine_id pairings, but no annotations are present to cover idempotency or safety. Description does not mention error behavior or return count, but for a 'get' tool it is adequate.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with action and resource, no filler. Efficiently conveys all necessary information.

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 no output schema, the description could mention return format (e.g., 'returns a worktree object'), but the lookup methods are well explained. It is complete enough for a simple retrieval 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 already covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds value by summarizing the valid combinations (id OR alias+machine_id OR path+machine_id), which is not explicit in the schema.

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 'Gets a worktree' with specific lookup methods (ID, alias, path). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like worktrees-list by specifying singular retrieval.

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?

Explicitly instructs to 'Provide one of: id, alias+machine_id, or path+machine_id', which defines correct usage and implies when to use alternatives (e.g., use ID if available). Lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance for sibling tools.

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