cb_checkout

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds the behavioral context that the mainline is read-only during experiments and that HEAD determines what can be modified. It doesn't describe side effects like whether working tree changes are preserved or whether checkout fails on dirty state, but the annotations cover the safety profile reasonably.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and scope, and the parenthetical adds essential context without waste. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and idempotentHint=true, the description is nearly complete. It explains the conceptual model (HEAD determines what can be modified) which is important for correct use. It doesn't describe return values, but there is no output schema and the tool is simple enough that this is a minor gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (name, root) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 states a specific verb ('切换 HEAD') and resource ('到指定分支'), and clarifies that during experiments the mainline is read-only and HEAD determines what can be modified. This is clear enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like cb_branch or cb_check, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 gives context for when to use it: during experiments, when the mainline is read-only and HEAD determines what can be changed. It implies this is the tool for switching the active branch, but it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like cb_branch or cb_checkout-like siblings. Still, the context is clear enough for an agent to infer usage.

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