contentrain_branch_list

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. Description adds value by detailing pending branches, merge status against contentrain, and health limits (warning at 50, blocked at 80 unmerged), providing context beyond annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage guidance and constraints. No wasted words. Efficient and clear structure.

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, high schema coverage, and strong annotations, the description fully covers purpose, usage, and behavioral limits. No gaps observed.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters (remote, unmerged_only). Description does not add new meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 lists 'pending contentrain (cr/*) branches with their merge status,' a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning it discovers branch names for merge/delete operations and monitors branch-health limits.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'discover branch names for contentrain_merge / contentrain_branch_delete, and to monitor branch-health limits.' Provides context on limits (warning at 50, blocked at 80 unmerged). No explicit exclusions but sibling list provides implicit differentiation.

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