list_branches

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits like read-only, pagination, sorting, or required permissions. A simple 'List branches' is insufficient for the agent to understand side effects or limitations.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded, containing no wasted words. However, it lacks any structure (e.g., bullet points or additional context) which would be beneficial for a tool with undocumented parameters.

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 tool has 2 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It does not explain return values, possible filters, error conditions, or prerequisites. The agent receives minimal context to use the tool effectively.

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 input schema has two parameters (owner, repo) with no descriptions. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain what 'owner' or 'repo' mean (e.g., GitHub username, repository name format). The mention of 'repository' only covers one parameter, leaving owner undefined. This severely undermines correct invocation.

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 (list) and the resource (branches), and the context 'in the repository' combined with the required parameters (owner, repo) makes the purpose specific. It distinguishes from siblings like list_repos or list_issues because no other sibling lists branches.

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 basic context (list branches in a repository) but offers no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. It is implied that it is used to retrieve branches, but explicit when-not or alternative suggestions are missing.

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