Review Branch Name

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the burden. The verb 'Check' implies a non-mutating validation, and the specific conventions are stated. However, it does not disclose return format, whether it produces a report/boolean, or how failures are surfaced. This is a gap for a tool with no annotations and no output schema.

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 that states the action and the two key convention aspects. There is no redundant wording, making it highly concise.

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 (one parameter, no nested objects, no output schema). The description covers the purpose and conventions, but the absence of an output schema and any mention of return behavior leaves an agent uncertain about the result format. Given the low complexity, this is a minor but real 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% for the single parameter, so the schema already documents branch_name. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond reinforcing that it's a branch name, but baseline 3 applies because the schema is complete.

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 resource ('git branch name'), and explicitly names the conventions checked (issue ID prefix, kebab-case). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like review_commit_message, which likely reviews commit messages, and get_standard, which may retrieve standards.

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 for validating branch names but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives, nor does it mention the sibling tools. The context (simple single-purpose tool) makes the usage clear, but there is no explicit exclusion or alternative guidance.

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