get_branches_route

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the verb 'List'—it omits that archived branches are excluded by default, that include_commit_status is slow on long histories, and any pagination or rate-limit details.

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 short phrase with no wasted words, which is efficient. However, it is arguably too terse to be structurally helpful, reading more like a title than a definition, and lacks the front-loaded detail that would guide invocation.

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 list tool with four parameters—including one (include_commit_status) whose slow behavior and default-null result are non-obvious—the description is incomplete. With no output schema, the definition should explain return behavior, defaults, and trade-offs, but it provides none of that.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all four parameters. The description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names; it does not clarify the impact of include_commit_status or the default for limit and include_archived. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the full load.

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 'List Agent Branches' states a clear verb and resource, making the tool's basic purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_branch_route (single branch) or other branch operations, so it lacks the specificity needed for a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_branch_route or the various branch mutation tools. The description provides no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name.

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