list_branches

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool lists branches and the commit each points to, and implies a read-only operation, but it does not mention potential limits, pagination, or lack of side effects beyond what the schema already states.

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 two concise sentences. The primary capability is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence provides practical context without unnecessary detail.

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?

For a straightforward list operation, the description covers what the tool does and when it is useful. There is no output schema, but the stated output — branches and their commits — is clear enough for an agent to know what to expect.

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 schema already documents both parameters, 'repo' and 'limit'. The description does not add extra semantic detail about parameters, but it does not need to; the schema is sufficient.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'List branches in a repo' and adds the useful detail that it returns the commit each branch points to. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_repo_overview or get_recent_commits.

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 gives concrete use cases: finding active feature branches and confirming the default branch name before calling other tools. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the provided context is enough to guide appropriate selection.

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