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 burden. It discloses the two main actions (create and switch) and references the underlying command, which implies standard git behavior. However, it does not mention potential failure conditions (e.g., if the branch already exists), repository prerequisites, or output/error handling. Adequate but with meaningful gaps.

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, front-loaded sentence: 'Create and switch to a new git branch (git checkout -b).' Every word contributes, and the parenthetical command provides valuable context without verbosity.

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?

This is a simple tool with 2 parameters, no required parameters, and an output schema. The description effectively covers the core operation. It could mention failure when the branch already exists, but the simplicity of the tool and the presence of an output schema mean the description is sufficiently complete.

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 covers 100% of parameters (repo_path, branch_name) with descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond the command reference 'git checkout -b'. Since schema coverage is high, a 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 action: 'Create and switch to a new git branch' — a specific verb (create+switch) applied to a specific resource (new git branch). It also includes the equivalent command 'git checkout -b', which distinguishes this from sibling tools like git_branch (which likely lists branches) and other git operations.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when you want to create a new branch and switch to it. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the inclusion of 'git checkout -b' implies the scope. This meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' criterion.

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