github_repos_list_branches

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose that this is a read-only operation, whether pagination is used (despite schema parameters per_page and page), or any authentication or rate-limit considerations. The description is too minimal to be transparent about behavior.

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 concise (two words) but at the expense of clarity and completeness. While conciseness is valued, the description underspecifies the tool's purpose and behavior, making it ineffective. It does not front-load critical information.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is woefully incomplete. It does not mention the scope (repository branches), pagination, filtering options, or return format. The context from the schema is insufficient to fully understand the tool's capabilities.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain how parameters like 'protected' or 'per_page' affect results, but the schema already provides adequate descriptions.

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 'List branches' provides a verb and resource, but it is vague and does not specify which branches (e.g., for a repository). The input schema clarifies it's for a repo via owner and repo parameters, but the description fails to differentiate from similar tools like github_repos_list_branches_for_head_commit, which also list branches. The purpose is clear enough but lacks specificity and sibling differentiation.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the large set of sibling tools, such as github_repos_get_branch or github_repos_list_branches_for_head_commit, the absence of usage context or exclusions makes it hard for an agent to select the correct tool.

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