fgui_list_branches

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose non-obvious behavior: refresh triggers a disk rescan, branch assets live at assets_<branch>/<package>, and the active branch does not auto-redirect editor saves. It stops short of stating that the call is side-effect-free or what happens on scan failure, so the read-only safety profile is only implied.

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?

Three short lines with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by parameter behavior and a domain caveat. Efficient overall, though the final caveat about save redirection reads as a fragment and its operational implication takes a moment to parse.

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?

This is a simple read tool with an output schema, so return values need no explanation; the description covers purpose, rescan behavior, and the branch directory convention. What is missing is only modest: confirmation of no side effects and clearer parameter-to-flag mapping.

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 all three parameters depend on the description. 'refresh=True 先从磁盘重扫' cleanly documents refresh, and '可附带每个包的分支根与资源' gestures at the two include flags, but it does not make clear which flag controls branch roots versus resources, leaving include_items and include_packages partly ambiguous.

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 gives a specific verb and resource (列出工程分支 / list project branches) plus the active branch, and notes optional per-package branch roots and resources. It is clearly distinguishable from fgui_create_branch and fgui_switch_branch by the 'list' verb, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with fgui_list_packages or fgui_list_items, which share the listing framing.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is for inspecting branches, and 'refresh=True 先从磁盘重扫' tells when to force a rescan. There is no explicit when-not guidance or pointer to fgui_switch_branch for changing branches, so the agent must infer the alternative.

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