git_create_pr

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses that the tool does NOT push the branch or invoke gh pr create, and returns YAML. It mentions using an AI model (Claude) and parameter defaults. However, it does not mention potential network requirements or any side effects besides generation, which is sufficient given the read-only nature.

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: the first clearly states purpose, the second clarifies behavior and distinguishes from related tools. No redundant information; every sentence 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?

Given no output schema, the description usefully states the return format (YAML). It covers what the tool does and does not do, and the schema handles parameter details. The description could be more explicit about the YAML structure (e.g., includes title and description), but it is sufficiently complete for decision-making.

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%, so the schema already documents the three parameters. The description adds minor context about model overrides and default behavior, but does not provide significant new information beyond the schema descriptions. 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 uses a specific verb 'Generate' and identifies the resource 'AI-drafted pull request title and description for the current branch'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling git tools by noting it does NOT push or invoke gh pr create, differentiating it from tools like git_staged_commit or manual PR creation workflows.

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 states the tool mirrors omni-dev git branch create pr in its content-generation phase and returns YAML without creating the PR, giving clear context for when to use it (to get a draft). It implicitly suggests alternatives (e.g., use gh pr create to actually create the PR), but does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions.

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