Create managed Git worktree

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals useful behavior: worktrees are isolated, writable, created under the runner worktree directory, and branches use an mcp/* namespace. However, it does not explain side effects, idempotency, failure conditions, or whether baseRef affects branch creation.

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, dense sentence with no filler and front-loads the core action. It could be slightly clearer by separating 'create' from 'register', but it remains appropriately compact.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description is incomplete for a 3-parameter tool with 0% schema description coverage and no annotations. It omits baseRef semantics, project meaning, failure behavior, and whether the branch must not already exist. The provided context is a useful start but not sufficient for correct invocation in edge cases.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description compensates only partially. It hints at the branch parameter via 'mcp/* branch' and at the project worktree location, but says nothing about baseRef or the exact meaning of project. Two parameters remain essentially undocumented in both schema and description.

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 a specific action ('Create/register an isolated writable worktree') and a concrete resource ('on an mcp/* branch under the runner worktree directory'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like git_worktree_remove and git_create_branch by scope and location.

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 phrasing implies this tool is used when an isolated writable worktree is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives, when not to use it, or how it relates to siblings like git_create_branch. Usage context is present but only by inference.

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