assign_worktree

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions permission and return format, but omits side effects, error conditions, and idempotency. There is a contradiction: description marks caller_agent_id as required (必須) while schema marks it optional with default null.

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 relatively short but includes unnecessary line breaks and a bullet list that could be more structured. The contradiction adds confusion, reducing conciseness.

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 has 4 parameters and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain prerequisites (e.g., worktree must exist), how assignment affects the worktree, or error scenarios. The return format is vaguely described.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It lists parameter names and brief translations (e.g., 'エージェントID'), adding minimal value. The misleading 'required' note for caller_agent_id contradicts the schema and harms clarity.

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 'assign worktree to an agent' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_worktree, list_worktrees, etc., which have different purposes.

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?

Explicitly states that only Owner and Admin can use the tool, providing a usage restriction. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_worktree or get_worktree_status.

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