github_list_branches

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 does not mention the default max_results=30 pagination cap, whether results are paginated, authentication requirements, or how the GitHub session is selected. The behavior around the default limit is a meaningful disclosure that's absent.

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?

Compact and reasonably structured with an Args section. The Args line-per-parameter format is readable and efficient. No wasted sentences, though it could briefly mention the default pagination behavior to earn a 5.

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 format need not be explained. However, the tool lacks annotations, has 0% schema description coverage, and the description omits behavioral details like the default 30-result cap and pagination semantics. For a simple listing tool this is adequate but not rich; the undocumented pagination behavior is the main gap.

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 lists parameters with one-line meanings (owner: Repository owner, max_results: Maximum branches to return), which adds some value over the schema's bare titles. However, it doesn't explain valid formats, differences between max_results and pagination, or how session_name selects among sessions. Partial compensation for low coverage.

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 states 'List all branches in a repository' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like github_get_branch (single branch) and github_list_tags (tags), though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. Among many branch/tag tools, 'branches in a repository' is clear enough to differentiate from the other list operations.

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 on when to use this vs alternatives. It doesn't mention that github_get_branch retrieves a single branch, or when listing is preferred. The description simply states the operation with no usage context, prerequisites, or alternative references. With 74 sibling tools, this is a notable gap.

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