git_checkout

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic function without detailing side effects (e.g., discarding uncommitted changes when using force) or outcomes (e.g., detached HEAD state). Critical behavior like the impact on working directory files is omitted.

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 front-loads the primary verb. Every word earns its place. While it is efficient, it could be slightly restructured (e.g., separating the two operations) for clarity, but overall it is well-sized.

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 tool's complexity (4 parameters, branch creation, force checkout, optional path) and the absence of an output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or typical usage patterns (e.g., restoring a single file vs. switching branches).

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% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema's property descriptions. It merely summarizes the overall purpose without elaborating on how parameters like 'create' or 'force' interact.

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 'Switch branches or restore working tree files' clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource. It covers the two main uses of git checkout, distinguishing it from sibling tools like git_branch (which manages branches) and git_status (which shows state). However, it lacks explicit differentiation from related tools like git_add or git_commit.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify prerequisites (e.g., a clean working tree) or conditions for using the 'force' parameter. Sibling tools like git_branch, git_log, or git_status could be confused for branch-related tasks, but no comparison is made.

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