List Protected Branches

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

The description aligns with the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true) by stating it 'List' protected branch rules, confirming a read-only operation. However, it does not add any behavioral details beyond what annotations already convey, such as pagination or rate limits.

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, clear sentence front-loading the main purpose. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy or unnecessary details. It is optimally concise for its role.

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?

While annotations cover safety, the description does not mention pagination (despite the existence of page/per_page parameters and openWorldHint) or the return format. For a simple list tool, this is an adequate but incomplete description.

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%, yet the description provides no explanation of the three parameters (project_id, page, per_page). The agent must infer their meaning solely from names. The description fails to compensate for the low coverage, resulting in poor parameter semantics.

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 the verb 'List' and the resource 'protected branch rules' with the context 'configured for a project.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'gitlab_get_branch_protection', which focuses on a single branch's protection rules instead of listing all rules.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'gitlab_get_branch_protection' or other listing tools. The description implies its usage context (projects) but fails to provide any exclusions or comparisons, leaving the agent without decision-making support.

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