repository_branches

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: the tool does not contact a remote, which is valuable. However, it does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation, nor does it describe any error conditions, permissions, or side effects. This is a minimal disclosure that leaves room for ambiguity.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero redundancy. The key action and scope are front-loaded, making it easy to scan and understand immediately.

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 has one required parameter and no annotation coverage, the description is too sparse. It omits any explanation of the parameter, which is essential for correct invocation. Although an output schema exists, the description does not even hint at what the tool returns. The description is not complete enough for an agent to call this tool confidently.

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, but it does not mention the sole parameter repository_path at all. The agent receives no guidance on what this path refers to or how to format it, leaving the parameter semantically unexplained. This is a critical gap.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'local branches', and explicitly notes 'without contacting a remote', which differentiates it from remote-related siblings like repository_remotes and repository_fetch. It precisely identifies what the tool does and its scope.

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 phrase 'without contacting a remote' implies when to use this tool (for local-only branch listing) and implicitly suggests alternatives for remote operations, but it does not explicitly name any sibling tools or conditions for when not to use it. This is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage, though explicit alternatives would improve it.

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