list_branch_restrictions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return format ('List of branch restrictions with kind, pattern, and settings'), which adds some context, but fails to address critical aspects like pagination (implied by 'limit'), authentication needs, error conditions, or rate limits. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 well-structured and front-loaded, with a clear purpose statement followed by concise sections for arguments and returns. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose, parameters, and return structure adequately, but lacks behavioral details (e.g., authentication, errors) and usage guidelines. Without annotations or output schema, it should do more to compensate, resulting in an average score.

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 description adds meaningful semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'repo_slug' identifies the repository and 'limit' controls the maximum number of results with a default of 50, clarifying their roles. However, it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., slug syntax) or the effect of 'limit' on pagination, leaving minor gaps.

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 resource ('branch restrictions (protection rules) in a repository'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_branch_restriction' and 'delete_branch_restriction' by focusing on listing rather than modifying. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools (e.g., 'list_branches'), which prevents a perfect score.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., repository access), exclusions, or comparisons with similar tools like 'list_branches' or 'get_branch'. This omission leaves the agent without clear usage direction.

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