tfs_list_branches

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'list branches' without mentioning any constraints (e.g., authentication, pagination, or scope) that an agent would need to consider.

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 concise sentence, but it is too sparse to add value. While efficient, it does not justify its brevity with meaningful detail.

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?

For a list tool with no output schema, the description should indicate what is returned (e.g., branch names) and any pagination behavior. It lacks this context, making it incomplete for an agent to anticipate the output.

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 50% (repositoryId has a brief description, project has none). The tool description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides, failing to compensate for the low coverage.

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 'List branches of a Git repository' clearly states the action (list) and the resource (branches of a Git repository), which is distinct from sibling tools like tfs_list_repos (list repositories) and tfs_list_commits (list commits).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are there any prerequisites or when-not-to-use instructions. The description offers no usage context.

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