git_checkout

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that restoring a file overwrites local changes or that switching branches may fail if the working tree has conflicts. This is a significant omission given the potentially destructive nature of the 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, concise sentence that starts with the action verbs. Every word contributes to the meaning, with no redundancy 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 complexity of git checkout—including its dual nature, potential to overwrite uncommitted changes, and reliance on working tree state—the description is too terse. It does not explain failure modes, output, or prerequisites, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use it safely and 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage and already describes the parameter ('A branch name to switch to, or a file path to restore.'). The tool description adds no additional meaning or nuance beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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's dual purpose: switching to a branch or restoring a file to its last committed state. It uses specific verbs ('switch', 'restore') and distinct resources ('branch', 'file'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like git_branch or git_create_branch.

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 specifies the two main scenarios in which to use this tool (switching branches or restoring files), providing clear context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the use cases are evident and no direct competing sibling tool exists.

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