brancher_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. 'List active Brancher nodes' suggests a read-only operation, but does not clarify if the list is paginated, limited, or includes metadata (e.g., status, uptime). The description minimally conveys safety (read-only) but omits specifics like authentication needs or rate limits.

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 extremely concise at just one line with no wasted words. It appropriately front-loads the action and target resource, making it easy for an AI agent 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?

Given there is only one parameter and an output schema exists, the description is somewhat complete for a simple listing tool. However, it lacks details on what the list contains (e.g., node IDs, IPs, status) and does not clarify if the tool returns only active nodes or all nodes filtered by activity. With no annotations, more context on behavior would be valuable.

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 schema describes only one parameter (`appname`) with 0% schema description coverage, meaning the description must add meaning. However, the description only mentions `appname` in context without elaborating on its format, acceptable values, or examples. It merely restates that `appname` is needed, adding little beyond the schema itself.

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) and the resource (active Brancher nodes), and it specifies the required parameter `appname`. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like `brancher_ssh_info` or `brancher_create` in terms of what makes this specific listing distinct.

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 implies usage by requiring `appname`, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., `brancher_ssh_info` for SSH info or `brancher_delete` for deletion). There is no mention of prerequisites or conditions for using the list.

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