Create a git worktree for a ticket

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

Annotations indicate idempotence and non-destructiveness. Description adds crucial details: refusal to create inside repo, reuse behavior, error conditions, and return items. No contradiction with annotations.

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 paragraph that efficiently communicates purpose, caveat, behavior, and error conditions. Slightly long but every sentence is informative. Could be split for readability.

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?

No output schema, but description specifies return items (path, branch, guidance). Covers error conditions and corner cases (non-git path, old git, directory squatting). Complete for a complex tool.

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 covers 33% of parameters with descriptions (only baseRef). Description compensates by explaining defaults (baseRef from HEAD), branch naming convention, and worktree path pattern. Adds meaningful context beyond schema.

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 states 'Create (or reuse) an isolated git worktree for a ticket' with a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like cleanup_worktree and list_worktrees by emphasizing parallel work on multiple tickets.

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?

Explicitly says when to use (parallel ticket work) and includes a caveat about avoiding synced repos. Could improve by naming alternative tools like cleanup_worktree for removal, but the context is sufficiently clear.

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