list_protected_branches

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the read-only nature via '[READ]' and describes the return structure. It adds context about force-push flags being included. However, it does not mention auth requirements or potential side effects, which are minor for a read tool.

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, front-loaded with purpose and read flag, and includes only necessary information. The structure is clear: one line for purpose, one for return type, then parameter descriptions. 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description is complete. It covers purpose, parameter details, and return structure. The mention of 'limit' and 'truncated' addresses pagination. No additional context needed for correct invocation.

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?

The description provides parameter semantics via an 'Args' section that explains each of the three parameters (project, limit, target) in detail, including default values. The input schema has no property descriptions, so the description fully compensates with high 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?

The description clearly states 'Branch-protection rules for a project (incl. force-push flags),' specifying both the resource and scope. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_branches (which lists branches, not protection rules) and update_branch_protection (which modifies).

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?

While the purpose is clear, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention exclusions or provide comparisons with siblings like list_branches or update_branch_protection. Usage is implied but not explicitly clarified.

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