Contract Testing: List Branches

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe, idempotent read. The description adds no additional behavioral traits beyond parameter details (filtering, pagination). It does not disclose potential side effects, error behavior, or authentication requirements. Given the annotation coverage, the description adds minimal value.

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 concise, starting with a clear purpose sentence. It includes a toolset label and a formatted parameter list. There is no fluff, though the parameter list partially duplicates the schema. Overall, it is efficiently structured.

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?

The description lacks information about the return format (e.g., that it returns an array of branch objects) and error handling. However, given the annotations (safe, idempotent) and the lack of an output schema, the description provides adequate context for a simple list operation. It could be more complete with a note on the response structure.

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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter described in the schema. The description adds value by organizing parameters in a list, marking pacticipantName as required, and providing default values for pageNumber and pageSize (1 and 100) that are not in the schema. This helps the agent understand default behavior beyond the schema descriptions.

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: 'Retrieve all branches for a given pacticipant'. It specifies the resource (branches) and the scope (for a given pacticipant), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like contract-testing_get_branch (single branch) and contract-testing_get_branch_versions (versions of a branch). The toolset label further contextualizes it.

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 implicitly indicates usage when one needs to list all branches for a pacticipant, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use get_branch instead). No mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance.

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