Branch Risk Analysis

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

readOnlyHint=true already communicates non-mutating behavior, and the description adds valuable context by listing the concrete analysis outputs (stale, diverged, inactive branches) and the critical precondition that repo_path must be provided when not already inside a git repo. No contradictions 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?

The description is tightly written: a first sentence stating the main purpose, a second listing the key findings, and a final note on a required parameter. Every sentence carries meaningful content with no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately conveys the result categories and the key usage requirement. It could be slightly more explicit about the exact return format (e.g., a list of branch risk objects), but for a read-only analysis tool with no required parameters, it is sufficiently complete.

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 schema provides 100% coverage with descriptive explanations for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the repo_path requirement but does not add new semantic details for base_branch or include_remote beyond what is already in the 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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Analyze all branches for staleness, divergence from the main branch, and merge risk.' It clearly distinguishes this branch-centric tool from sibling tools like hotspots and risk_assessment by focusing on branch health rather than broader codebase risks.

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 provides clear context for use: identifying stale branches for cleanup, branches likely to cause merge conflicts, and inactive branches. It also gives an important prerequisite note about repo_path. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings like risk_assessment, so it falls short of a 5.

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