worktree

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses important traits: isolation from the live checkout, read-only list behavior, and that create/remove are governed. However, 'two-chamber-governed' is unexplained jargon, and details about side effects, branch deletion, or force behavior are absent.

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 compact and front-loads the key behavior (isolated worktree) before listing actions. The two sentences contain no filler. However, the phrase 'two-chamber-governed' is opaque and could be clearer without adding length.

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 has 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description gives a good high-level summary and names the actions, but does not explain per-action parameters, return values, or the actual 'two-chamber-governed' mechanism. The rich schema compensates partly, but not fully.

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 high at 88%, so the parameters are already well documented in the input schema. The description adds only the action enum grouping, no additional meaning about base, branch, force, delete_branch, or worktree_path. The high coverage keeps this at baseline 3.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: it runs dispatched work in an isolated Git-worktree sandbox, and explicitly enumerates the three actions (create, list, remove). This is a specific verb+resource statement that distinguishes it from the unrelated sibling tools.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool—when you need to run work in isolation and avoid touching the live checkout. It also distinguishes read-only usage (list) from governed mutations (create/remove). It does not name alternative tools or explicit exclusions, but the usage context is sufficiently clear.

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