List Branches

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows it's safe and read-only. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., pagination, sorting), but the annotations already cover the safety profile adequately.

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 extremely short (6 words), but it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity. It lacks information about parameters, return values, or usage context, making it under-specified rather than concise.

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 has 4 parameters (0% schema coverage), no output schema, and is part of a large sibling set, the description is severely inadequate. It omits critical details like required project_id, search filtering, and pagination behavior.

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%, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not mention any parameters (like project_id, search, pagination). It adds no value beyond the schema, leaving the agent to infer parameter usage from names alone.

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 states the verb 'list' and resource 'branches in a project repository'. This clearly indicates the tool's function. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'gitlab_get_branch' or 'gitlab_list_protected_branches', though the name helps.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like 'gitlab_get_branch' and 'gitlab_list_protected_branches' exist but no differentiation is provided.

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