indecx_list_branches

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive, so the additional pagination disclosure ('Returns one page') and the security instruction to treat survey text as untrusted data add genuine behavioral context beyond the structured metadata. There is no contradiction with 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?

Three short sentences, with the core action front-loaded and no redundant filler. Each sentence adds a distinct piece of information (scope, pagination, security), so it is appropriately sized.

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 simple 0-parameter read-only listing tool, the description covers the essential behaviors: what is listed, single-page result, continuation, and data-safety guidance. The only meaningful gap is that the pagination instruction conflicts with the empty input schema, making the operational contract slightly incomplete.

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 schema is empty (0 parameters, 100% coverage), which normally earns a baseline of 4, but the description's instruction to 'use page/limit to continue' references parameters that are absent from the input schema. This mismatch undermines the schema's authority and could lead an agent to attempt invalid arguments, so the description adds negative rather than helpful parameter information.

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 clear verb ('List') and resource ('registered branches (IH1)'), and the IH1 qualifier gives an immediate operational grouping. It is distinguishable from sibling indecx_list_actions by naming branches as the target resource, so an agent can select it without opening the schema.

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 conveys that this is the listing tool for branches and gives pagination guidance ('use page/limit to continue'), but it does not name any sibling or state when to prefer it over alternatives such as indecx_list_actions or indecx_get_action. The usage context is implied rather than explicit, with no exclusions or decision rules.

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