list_branches

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

The description goes beyond schema by disclosing that limit is capped at 99 and the result carries a 'truncated' flag when server has more. No annotations were provided, so this transparency is valuable, though it could mention authorization requirements.

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 concise with two clear sentences and a structured args list. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy.

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?

No output schema is provided; description states the tool returns branches with last-commit date and protected flag but does not detail the full output structure or pagination beyond the truncation flag. For a simple listing tool, it is adequate but incomplete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully explains each parameter: project (id or full path), limit (default 100, capped at 99, truncation behavior), and target (server target, default handled). This adds critical meaning absent from the schema.

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 clearly states it is a read operation with '[READ]' and specifies the resource (branches) and the returned fields (last-commit date and protected flag). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tool 'list_protected_branches' by implication, as this lists all branches.

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 description explains the tool's functionality but does not explicitly advise when to use this tool over siblings like 'list_protected_branches'. Usage context is implied but not clearly stated.

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