list_branches

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that results include branch names and commit metadata, and that the tool can list or search. However, it doesn't address pagination, rate limits, or auth requirements, which are relevant for a networked tool.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, followed by a usage rationale. Every sentence is informative and there is no redundancy.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the tool does, its output (branch names and commit metadata), and its role in a larger workflow. It is complete for its intended use as a selection tool for ref arguments.

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 coverage is 100% (baseline 3). The description adds value by detailing the search parameter's support for partial matches and anchors like '^main$', and clarifies the project parameter's formats. This exceeds the schema's description.

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 'List or search branches in a CERN GitLab repository' with a specific verb and resource. It also explains the output includes branch names and commit metadata, but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like list_tags, though the name and context make it clear.

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 a use case: 'so a branch can be selected and passed as the ref argument to repository content and code-search tools'. However, it does not state when not to use or mention alternatives like list_tags for tag selection, leaving some ambiguity.

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