list_refs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. "List" implies read-only and complete enumeration, but it doesn't address permissions, whether remote refs are included, or pagination. Adequate but thin for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single 8-word sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and resource. Nothing could be cut without losing meaning.

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 values needn't be explained, and with zero parameters there's little schema surface to cover. The only remaining gap is behavioral detail about ref scope and permissions, which is minor for this simple, high-confidence list tool.

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 tool takes no parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description's only assumption is that the ref scope is ambient (no repository/owner argument), which the empty schema confirms.

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 pairs a specific verb ("List") with a concrete resource ("tags and branches") and explains that these are Git refs. It also links the tool to a named sibling (get_changes), so an agent can tell it apart from list_symbols/list_files, though it doesn't explicitly disambiguate against those.

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?

"available for get_changes" gives clear context: enumerate refs before calling get_changes. It stops short of an explicit when-to-use/when-not rule or naming an alternative ref-listing tool.

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