repository_locations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses a key trait: it returns observed data and does not infer project truth. However, it does not mention read-only nature, permissions, side effects, or the return format (though an output schema exists). The single behavioral note adds value but is not comprehensive.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and includes a meaningful qualifier. It has no filler or redundancy, making it highly efficient.

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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter and an output schema, which reduces the need for extensive description. However, the lack of parameter explanation and usage guidance leaves gaps. The core purpose is clear, but an agent might not know how to effectively call it without more context.

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 does not mention the 'workspace_root' parameter at all. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description should compensate, but it fails to explain what this parameter controls or how it affects the returned locations. The agent is left to guess its semantics.

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: 'Return observed physical Git checkout/worktree locations'. It specifies the resource and adds a qualifier 'without inferring project truth' that clarifies the nature of the data. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but the purpose is distinct enough from generic filesystem or status tools.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The qualifier 'without inferring project truth' hints at a use case for raw data, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use, nor any mention of sibling tools or conditions.

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