getBranches

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get branches' without explaining return format, authentication needs, side effects, or whether it lists all branches or a filtered set. The verb 'Get' implies a read operation, but no explicit safety guarantees are provided.

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, clear sentence with no redundant wording, making it appropriately concise. However, it is minimal to the point of under-specification, yet it still front-loads the core purpose effectively.

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 the lack of output schema and annotations, the description should provide more context about what a branch object looks like, how repositories are identified, and how the 'relays' parameter affects behavior. The current description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's inputs and outputs.

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 67%, with 'relays' lacking any description. The description adds no explanation of parameter purpose or format, leaving the optional 'relays' parameter ambiguous and not compensating for the incomplete schema 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 clearly states the action 'Get' and the resource 'branches for a repository', making the purpose unambiguous. It is distinct from sibling tools like getRepo or listRepos, but lacks explicit differentiation from similar ref-listing tools such as bridgeListRefs.

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. The description simply states what it does without any context about selection criteria, prerequisites, or when other tools would be more appropriate.

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