list_branches

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return format ('List of branches with commit info'), which is helpful, but lacks critical details like pagination behavior (beyond the limit parameter), authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether results are sorted/filtered.

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 efficiently structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) and uses minimal, purposeful sentences. Every line adds value—no redundant or verbose phrasing—making it easy to parse quickly.

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 read-only list tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basics (purpose, parameters, return format) but lacks depth. Without annotations, it should ideally include more behavioral context (e.g., pagination, auth). The return format hint is helpful, but overall completeness is adequate yet minimal.

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 explicitly documents both parameters ('repo_slug' and 'limit') with brief explanations, including the default value for 'limit'. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this adds significant value beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't elaborate on format details (e.g., what a 'repository slug' entails).

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 ('branches in a repository'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'list_repositories' or 'list_tags', which follow the same pattern for different resources.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_branch' (for single branch details) or 'list_commits' (for commits within branches), leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name alone.

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