List branches

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context such as pagination behavior, response structure, or search semantics. It adds no value beyond the annotations.

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 fragment, which is concise but under-specified. It lacks a verb and is not structured to convey behavior. This is under-specification rather than effective conciseness, much like the 'Process' example.

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 no output schema and 6 parameters, the description should at least indicate that it returns project branches and supports pagination/search. The bare label 'Branches of a project.' leaves too much unspecified for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 83%, so the baseline is 3. The description contributes no additional parameter explanation; it doesn't clarify how page, limit, all_pages, or project_id interact. Since the schema already describes most parameters well, a 3 is appropriate.

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 'Branches of a project.' is a noun phrase that restates the title without specifying the action (listing). It does not distinguish from sibling tools such as gitlab_list_protected_branches or gitlab_branch_action, and lacks a clear verb.

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 provides no usage guidance, no when-to-use vs alternatives, and no exclusions. It fails to mention how this list tool differs from protected branches or branch management tools.

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