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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'Creates nothing.' It adds genuinely new context beyond annotations: the domain invariant that a task has one live branch, and that suggestedName is either the live branch or the server-convention name for a new one.

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?

Two dense, front-loaded sentences that lead with the read operation and its returned fields, then param behavior. The parenthetical asides are informative rather than filler, though the second sentence packs several clauses.

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 in the definition, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating the fields returned plus the conditional suggestedName. Nothing essential to a correct call is 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it explains that suggestedName only appears alongside taskID and what that value represents. This goes beyond the schema's one-line parameter descriptions.

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?

States a specific verb (Lists) and resource (repository branches) and names the concrete fields returned: sha, default/protected flags, and taskKey. No sibling tool covers branch enumeration, so the agent can identify this immediately.

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?

It gives clear conditional guidance: use search to filter by name substring, and pass taskID to scope to a single task's live branches. It does not name an explicit alternative or exclusion case, so it stops 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.