branch_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explicitly signals read-only behavior with 'Leitura', which is useful, but it does not disclose return format, pagination, required permissions, or any other behavioral traits that could affect invocation.

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 very short and front-loaded, with no filler. Every word earns its place, though the brevity leaves out useful detail. It is appropriately concise for a simple listing tool.

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 tool with 3 parameters, low schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is not complete enough. It lacks explanations of the required 'repo' parameter and the 'filter' parameter, and provides no return-value context. An agent could call it but may guess at parameter behavior.

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 only 33%, with only the 'project' parameter described. The description adds almost no parameter-level meaning: it references 'repo' generically but does not explain the required 'repo' parameter format or the semantics of 'filter'. The low schema coverage is not compensated.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Lista branches de um repo' (lists branches of a repo). The resource type clearly distinguishes it from sibling list tools like pr_list, commit_list, and repo_list.

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 intended use is implied clearly by the tool name and description—list branches of a repository—but there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over other list tools, nor any exclusions or alternative recommendations. The context is adequate but relies on inference.

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