Validate a git branch name

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does a good job: it discloses the return format (compliant, problems, warnings) and the base branch exemption. It does not mention that this is a read-only operation, but the verb 'Check' and the nature of validation make that evident. No contradictions.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core verb and resource, and every sentence adds value. The example and return behavior are condensed effectively with no waste.

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 single-parameter validation tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, compliance criteria, return contents, and exceptions. It doesn't spell out what 'kebab-case' means, but the example is sufficient. Overall complete for its complexity.

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 coverage is 100% with a clear description for 'name', but the tool description adds extra meaning by explaining the convention and giving an example ('feat/add-dark-mode'), which helps the agent understand what values are appropriate beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb 'Check' and a clear resource 'git branch name', and identifies the exact convention being validated. It naturally distinguishes itself from sibling tools that deal with commit messages (validate_commit_message, format_commit_message).

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 it is the tool to use for branch name validation against the companion convention, and mentions base branch exceptions. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid it or name alternative tools for similar tasks, though the sibling context makes the domain distinction obvious.

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