List Branches

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that — no scoping, no indication of what is returned or filtered. Worse, it offers no explanation for why a "list branches" tool carries 13 mutation-flavored parameters (force, dry_run, install, save), which is genuinely confusing context an agent would need.

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?

It is short and the action is front-loaded, which is good. But the second sentence is pure boilerplate that could be deleted without losing information, so it is brief rather than truly economical.

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 described. But for a read-only tool whose schema is dominated by unrelated maintain/setup/save parameters, the description should clarify the action, scope, and why those parameters exist. That critical framing is absent.

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 itself documents all 13 parameters in detail — this sets the baseline at 3 per the rubric. The description supplies no parameter meaning at all and never reconciles the listing action with the maintain/setup/template params in the schema, so it does nothing to raise the score.

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 first clause names a concrete verb+resource ("List branches"), so the action is identifiable. However, it gives no scope (which repo/workspace) and does nothing to distinguish it from the near-identical sibling repository_manager_list_branches. The trailing "Core workspace organization, configuration, and maintenance" is generic filler that adds no discriminating information.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to the obvious alternative (repository_manager_list_branches or rm_workspace_list). "Core workspace organization, configuration, and maintenance" is a category label, not usage direction, leaving the agent to guess which of the many siblings to pick.

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