list_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 the return format (JSON mapping branch names to concept counts) and scopes the result to the 24 top-level categories. It does not explicitly mention side effects or permissions, but 'list' inherently indicates a read-only operation.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The supporting details (24 categories, examples, return format) are concise and every sentence adds value.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, this description is complete. It explains what the tool returns, the scope of results, and gives concrete examples. No critical information seems missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain beyond what the empty input schema shows. The description adds meaningful context about what the output contains, which is sufficient given the lack of parameters.

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 tool lists all FOLIO taxonomy branches with concept counts. It specifies the exact scope (24 top-level categories) and provides examples, differentiating it from sibling get_taxonomy_branch which presumably fetches a single branch.

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 implies usage when an overview of all taxonomy branches is needed, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives like get_taxonomy_branch or search_concepts. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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