List config git branches

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description goes beyond that by disclosing the return type (list[str]) and the failure mode (RuntimeError when gitpython is missing or no repo exists), which is genuinely useful behavioral context.

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?

Front-loads the purpose well, but the middle sentence ('Calls `_repo()` and returns every local branch name from `repo.branches`') exposes internal implementation details that add little for an agent and duplicate the surrounding statements.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, yet the description still names the return type and error conditions. For a zero-parameter read tool with rich annotations, this is essentially complete.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify, and it correctly adds no parameter noise.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (local branches in the HA config git repository), so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like git_git_create_branch or git_git_checkout_branch, but the scope is unambiguous.

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 error note routes the agent usefully: if no repo exists yet, run `git_git_init_config` first. That is clear context, though it is framed as error recovery rather than proactive when-to-use guidance against alternatives (e.g., git_git_log for history).

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