git_branch_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'analyze' (implying read-only) and returns YAML, but does not mention safety, side effects, or any restrictions. The information is minimal beyond its basic function.

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: two sentences that quickly convey the core action, target, and output format. Every phrase adds value, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 low parameter count and lack of output schema or annotations, the description covers the basic purpose and output. However, it omits details like error handling, default behavior, or edge cases (e.g., when branch is invalid). For a simple tool, it is minimally adequate but not thorough.

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?

Both parameters ('branch' and 'repo_path') are described in the input schema with defaults and descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline of 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 clearly states the action ('analyze branch commits against a base') and the output format ('YAML'). It also references a known command, making it unambiguous. Among siblings (git_check_commits, git_view_commits, etc.), this tool's purpose is distinct and well-defined.

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's for comparing branch commits to a base, but fails to provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like git_check_commits or git_view_commits. No 'when not to use' or context for selection is given.

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