Git Ls-Remote (host-side)

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose that it queries host-side without downloading objects and runs on the host machine ('主機端'). However, it doesn't describe network behavior, failure modes, or what happens on nonexistent branches/refs, though for a read-only ls-remote type tool the risk profile is lower.

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 concise sentences in Traditional Chinese that are front-loaded with the core purpose and usage context. The example is useful and illustrative. Slight opportunity to be more compact, but no wasted words.

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?

For a read-only inspection tool with 100% schema coverage and 6 well-documented parameters, the description adequately covers purpose and usage. No output schema exists, but for ls-remote the output format is well-known git output. The host-side emphasis and pre-fetch use case provide sufficient context given the tool's low complexity.

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 every parameter (tags, heads, remote, pattern, timeout, repoPath) is documented in the schema. The description adds the '主機端絕對路徑' and remote-name-only constraint context, but mostly reinforces what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full coverage.

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?

Specific verb+resource+mode: '查詢本機 repo 的遠端 refs（git ls-remote，不下載物件）'. Clearly distinguishes from az_git_fetch (which downloads objects) by explicitly stating '不下載物件' and framing it as a pre-fetch confirmation tool. The example '確認 releases/s116/rc-092 存在於 origin' reinforces the precise purpose.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: '適合在 fetch 前快速確認遠端分支是否存在'. This clearly implies its role relative to az_git_fetch. However, it doesn't explicitly name the alternative tool or state when not to use it, though sibling context makes this reasonably clear.

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