List protected branches

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

Annotations already declare the operation read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the domain context of inspecting access policy but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as pagination behavior or how search affects results.

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 with no filler, repetition, or unnecessary words. It front-loads the core purpose and is easy to parse.

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 straightforward read-only list tool with an output schema and clear annotations, the description plus schema is mostly sufficient. It lacks explicit guidance on pagination/search semantics, but the schema captures the accepted parameters and the operation is simple.

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 only 25%, and the description does not compensate by explaining page, search, or per_page. Only 'project' is described in the schema, and the description merely reuses the 'GitLab project' context without adding parameter-level meaning.

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 ('Inspect') and a clear resource ('protected-branch access policy') scoped to a GitLab project. It distinguishes this from plain branch listing tools like list_branches and aligns with related protected-branch tools.

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 implies the tool is for inspecting protected-branch policies rather than ordinary branches or a single protected branch, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over get_protected_branch or list_branches. No alternatives or exclusions are provided.

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