git_create_branch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It explicitly states two behavioral effects: creating a branch and switching to it, which reveals that the tool mutates repository state and changes the current working branch. This is valuable beyond just 'create', though it omits edge-case behaviors like error handling when the branch already exists or branch naming constraints.

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, short sentence: 'Create a new branch and switch to it.' Every word adds value, and it is front-loaded with the purpose. There is no filler or redundancy, making it maximally concise and clear.

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?

The tool is simple, the schema fully documents both parameters, and an output schema exists (so return values are covered). The description's brevity is sufficient for an agent to understand when and how to invoke the tool correctly, without needing additional details about output format or complex side effects.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters ('The new branch name' and 'Base branch to branch from. Defaults to HEAD'). The description does not add additional parameter semantics, so with high schema coverage 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 a specific action ('Create a new branch') and an additional behavior ('switch to it') that distinguishes it from sibling tools like git_branch (which likely lists branches) and git_checkout (which switches existing branches). It names the resource (branch) and the verb (create), fully capturing the tool's 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: an agent should use this when it wants to create a new branch and switch to it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as using git_checkout to switch to an existing branch or git_branch for listing branches. The context is clear but no exclusions or comparative guidance are provided.

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