preview_branch_name

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the branch is not created, which is the key safety trait, but does not explain what 'validates' means: does it check naming conventions, existing branches, or character limits? It also doesn't disclose whether this makes any network calls, requires auth, or what side effects (if any) occur. The return/output behavior is not described.

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?

A single, tightly-written sentence that conveys the core action and the key non-effect ('without creating the branch'). Zero wasted words. Appropriate for its scope.

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?

Despite having 4 parameters at 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description does not document parameter semantics, validation rules, return format (though an output schema exists which partially helps), or when to prefer this over sibling branch-related tools. The output schema partially covers return-value expectations, which raises the score slightly, but the input semantics and usage context are significantly under-specified for an agent to invoke this 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 4 parameters (description, environment, basecamp_url, source_branch) are documented. With 0% coverage, the description must compensate, but it gives no hint about what parameters feed into the branch name construction — no format, no which are optional vs required beyond the schema's requirement on 'description', and no examples of expected values like how environment or basecamp_url influence the generated name.

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 it 'Builds and validates the branch name without creating the branch', which specifies the verb (builds, validates), the resource (branch name), and a key negative criterion (not creating). This distinguishes its non-destructive preview nature from actual branch-creation tools like preview_remote_branch, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling alternative.

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 implies this is a preview/non-committing operation, which distinguishes it from tools like preview_remote_branch (which previews remote state) and preview_local_commit. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions, and doesn't clarify when one would choose this vs. the branch-creating counterparts among siblings.

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