list_branches

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about ordering, pagination/truncation when limit is hit, default result count, or auth requirements against the active repo. Only the read-only nature is weakly implied by 'List'.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though that efficiency comes partly from omitting information rather than from tight editing of complete content.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the agent gets no information on the return shape (names vs. objects), default page size, or what 'active repository' means operationally. The single sentence leaves real gaps an agent must guess at.

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?

There is one parameter (limit) at 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. The schema constrains it as a positive integer but never says whether it caps branches returned or something else, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('branches') and scopes it to 'the active GitHub repository', which separates it from sibling tools like list_commits or create_branch. It does not explicitly name a sibling it is not, but the verb+resource combination is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus alternatives such as create_branch or list_commits, nor any stated prerequisites (e.g., needing a selected repository). The only usage signal is the implicit 'you want to see branches', which merely restates the purpose.

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