push_task_branch

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 fails to mention any safety profile (e.g., read-only vs. mutate), remote target, or potential side effects, leaving the agent without critical information about the operation's impact.

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 extremely concise at four words, with no superfluous information. It is front-loaded and every word contributes to the meaning, making it optimally scannable for an agent.

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?

Despite the tool's simplicity, the description is incomplete. It does not specify what 'current task branch' refers to, the remote to push to, or any post-push behavior. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, this sparse description leaves the agent with insufficient context for confident invocation.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so the baseline score is 4. The description appropriately says nothing about parameters since there are none, and no additional parameter semantics are needed.

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 'Push current task branch' clearly states the action (push) and the resource (task branch), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_task_branch or create_commit. However, it lacks explicit differentiation context, such as mentioning the remote or the purpose of pushing.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any preconditions (e.g., needing commits) or exclusions. The description provides no context about the appropriate workflow stage for pushing a task branch.

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