list_branches

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond that by disclosing the truncation signal ('the result carries truncated when the server had more') and the result fields, which is meaningful behavioral context for a list operation.

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?

Front-loaded [READ] marker, one-line summary, then a compact Args block. Every line carries information; there is no filler, though the summary could be tightened into an explicit verb.

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, the description supplies the key return fields and truncation behavior, and documents all three parameters. It stops short of explaining how to retrieve the remaining rows once truncated, which is the one real gap for a capped list tool.

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 0%, so the description carries the full parameter burden and largely meets it: project is 'id or full path', limit carries default/cap/truncation behavior, and target explains config-server selection. The only ambiguity is the 'default 100, capped at 99' wording, which reads as inconsistent.

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 names a specific resource (branches) and states the fields returned (last-commit date, protected flag), with a [READ] tag reinforcing the operation type. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling list_protected_branches, leaving the agent to infer the difference.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of the sibling list_protected_branches, which returns an overlapping resource. The only routing hint is 'omit for the default' on target, which is parameter detail rather than tool-selection guidance.

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