Scaffold git worktrees

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses validation (git repo, no overlaps, safe paths) and creation, plus dry-run preview, but lacks details on error handling, state changes, or output specifics.

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 with two sentences, front-loading the main actions. However, it could separate validation details for better structure; overall it efficiently conveys key points.

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 (nested plans array, validation steps) and lack of parameter descriptions, the description is moderately complete. The presence of an output schema partially compensates, but details on validation criteria and parameter constraints are missing.

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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'per plan' and 'dryRun', but does not explain the individual fields of the plans array (title, specMd, fileBoundaries, branchSlug), leaving parameter semantics incomplete.

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 validates and creates worktrees per plan, returning a ready-to-paste prompt. This distinguishes it from sibling tools 'check_boundary_overlaps' and 'decompose_into_plans', which handle earlier steps.

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 tool is used after planning and overlap checking, but doesn't explicitly state when to use it or when not to, nor does it mention alternatives beyond the implied workflow.

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