List repository branches

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

The description adds the 'search' capability beyond the annotations, and confirms project scoping. It is consistent with readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior or how search/regex interact, so it adds only moderate value.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. No filler.

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 modest complexity (5 params) and low schema coverage, the description is too sparse. It does not clarify search behavior or pagination, which are likely to cause agent error. Output schema mitigates return-value uncertainty, but the operational behavior remains underdescribed.

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?

Only the 'project' parameter has a schema description. The description mentions 'search' but does not explain the difference between 'search' and 'regex', nor does it document 'page' or 'per_page' semantics. With only 20% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate.

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 uses a specific verb ('List or search') and clearly identifies the resource ('branches in a GitLab project'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_branch and delete_branch, though it does not explicitly differentiate from list_protected_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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to prefer this over list_protected_branches, list_tags, or other branch-related tools, nor does it mention search vs. listing scenarios.

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