github_list_branches

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

The description mentions routing through JWT/tenant/company scope, which hints at authentication but does not disclose core behavioral traits. Without annotations, the agent needs to know that this is a read-only operation, what happens on error, or whether it requires a repository context. The description fails to provide such details.

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 short (two sentences plus an args line), which is appropriate for the tool's simplicity. However, it lacks informative content, and the structure is flat. It earns a middle score because it is concise but not effectively structured to convey key details.

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 an output schema, the description fails to explain the input requirements or the scope of the list (e.g., which repository's branches). The output schema existence does not excuse the complete lack of parameter guidance. The tool's complexity is low, but the description gaps leave the agent without necessary context to use it safely and effectively.

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 single parameter 'arguments' is described as a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', but no schema or examples are given for its internal structure. With 0% schema description coverage, the agent has no way to know what keys (e.g., repo, owner) to provide or how to construct the JSON. This is critically insufficient for correct tool invocation.

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 it is a 'list_branches' operation for GitHub, which is moderately clear. However, it does not specify that it lists branches of a repository or what 'branches' means in this context. The description merely restates the name and adds a technical routing detail, but lacks a plain-English explanation of the tool's function. The purpose is inferred from the name, not illuminated by the description.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among sibling tools, there are several GitHub tools like 'github_get_branch' and 'github_list_commits', but the description does not differentiate or suggest use cases. An agent must rely solely on the name to infer relevance.

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