Server declares 2 tools with basic schemas and descriptions. Both tools have input schemas with type definitions and parameter descriptions, meeting minimum requirements. However, descriptions are terse (under 100 chars), output schemas are not documented, and error handling guidance is absent. Tool naming follows verb_noun convention (create_branch, run_tests), which is good. Parameters lack constraints (enums, ranges, defaults). No tool annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint) despite create_branch being a WRITE operation. Resources feature is well-implemented with skill:// URIs and proper metadata, but tools themselves lack production-grade polish.

• Add destructiveHint: true to create_branch schema to signal that this operation modifies Git state and may have side effects.
• Document output schemas for both tools. E.g., create_branch returns {branch_name: string, created_at: string, commit_hash: string}; run_tests returns {suite: string, passed: number, failed: number, duration_ms: number}.
• Add enum constraint to suite parameter: {type: 'string', enum: ['unit', 'integration', 'all'], description: 'Test suite to run'}.
• Expand tool descriptions to 100-200 chars. Include when to call, what it returns, and any prerequisites. E.g., 'Create a new Git branch from the current HEAD. Use this before making code changes. Requires a valid branch name (no spaces, special chars). Returns the new branch name and commit hash.'
• Add error handling guidance in descriptions. E.g., 'If branch already exists, the tool will fail with a clear message. Verify the branch name is unique before calling.'