list_worktrees

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

No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, idempotency, or side effects. The simple action statement lacks behavioral context beyond listing.

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 short and includes Args/Returns sections, but an inaccuracy about parameter requiredness reduces clarity. It is reasonably concise but not flawless.

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?

With an output schema, the return format summary is adequate, but the description lacks context among many sibling worktree tools (e.g., create_worktree, get_worktree_status), missing completeness about its role.

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 description provides brief explanations for parameters ('caller_agent_id: 呼び出し元エージェントID') but misstates 'caller_agent_id' as required (schema shows optional with default null). This inaccuracy and minimal detail fail to fully compensate for 0% schema coverage.

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 'リポジトリのworktree一覧を取得する' (list worktrees of a repository), identifying the specific action and resource, and distinguishing from sibling tools like create_worktree or remove_worktree.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, such as when to list vs create or remove worktrees. The description only explains what it does without usage context.

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