Git MCP Server

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 mentions optional search functionality but fails to describe critical behaviors like pagination (implied by 'page' and 'per_page' parameters but not explained), rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling. For a tool with pagination parameters, this lack of behavioral context is a significant gap.

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 with only two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and efficiently adding the optional search feature. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy 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 the tool's complexity (4 parameters including pagination), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., list structure, branch details), pagination behavior, or error cases. For a tool that likely returns structured data, this omission leaves the agent without crucial context for proper invocation and response handling.

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 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by hinting at the optional 'search' functionality but doesn't provide additional context like search syntax or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('branches in a repository'), making it immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'create_branch' by focusing on retrieval rather than creation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools like 'list_issues' or 'list_pull_requests' beyond the resource type.

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 through the phrase 'Optionally search for specific branches,' suggesting this tool is for listing branches with optional filtering. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'search_code' or how it relates to other list operations. No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are mentioned.

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