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. 'List' implies a read-only operation and the optional status filter communicates the main behavioral variation. However, it does not mention pagination, ordering, data scope ('fictitious'), or any other behavioral details that would help an agent understand the call outcome beyond the schema.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It states the core action first and adds the optional filtering condition second. Every word earns its place.

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 simple list tool with one optional parameter and an output schema present, the description is largely sufficient. The only notable gap is the lack of explicit guidance about sibling tools, but the low complexity and schema coverage keep the tool invocable without more detail.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining that 'status' acts as an optional filter, which is meaningful semantic information beyond the raw schema property definition. The enum values are already present in the schema, so the description's contribution is appropriate for the single parameter.

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 action ('List'), the resource ('fictitious branches'), and the optional scoping mechanism ('filtered by status'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_branch (singular retrieval) and list_terminals/list_incidents (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 clear context for when to use the tool: whenever a list of branches is needed, with status as an optional filter. It does not explicitly name excluded alternatives or say 'use get_branch for a single branch', but the resource scope is evident from the tool name and description.

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