open_worktree_with_ai

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

No annotations provided; the description lacks information on side effects, destructive nature, or system changes beyond opening. The return format is given, but behavioral context is insufficient.

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 and front-loaded with purpose. The mixed Japanese/English may reduce clarity, but overall it's efficient with bullet-style Arg/Returns sections.

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 zero schema coverage and no annotations, the description should provide more context about behavior, error cases, and required permissions. The existing prereqs and return format help but are insufficient for safe invocation.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It lists three parameters with brief meanings, but contradicts the schema by marking 'caller_agent_id' as required when schema allows null. This misinformation reduces reliability.

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 tool opens a worktree with an AI tool using the 'gtr ai' command. It specifies prerequisites (gtr installed, owner/admin) and distinguishes from sibling worktree tools that create or list worktrees.

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 indicates when to use (with gtr installed and owner/admin role) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternative tools like 'create_worktree' or 'open_session'.

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