cherry_pick_commit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only says 'Cherry-pick a commit' without detailing that it creates a new commit, requires permissions, or may cause conflicts. The behavioral impact is underspecified.

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 concise and front-loaded with the purpose. The argument list is neatly structured without extraneous information. Every part serves a purpose.

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 complexity of cherry-pick operations and the presence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what happens on success or failure, output format, or how it interacts with git history. Agent may lack necessary context to use it correctly.

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 adds meaning to parameters like 'Commit SHA to cherry-pick' and 'Target branch for cherry-pick', which goes beyond the schema's property names. However, with 0% schema description coverage, more detail (e.g., format, examples) would be beneficial. The parameter descriptions are minimal but functional.

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 action 'Cherry-pick a commit' which is a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes from siblings like create_commit or revert_commit by using the term 'cherry-pick'. However, it lacks further context about what cherry-pick entails.

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 versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, conflict resolution, or situations where cherry-pick is inappropriate. Siblings like revert_commit exist but no differentiation is provided.

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