list_branches

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 accurately indicates a read-only listing action and states the returned data shape (branch names and latest commit hashes). However, it does not disclose pagination, potential size limits, or any authentication requirements. Since the action is benign and the return type is summarized, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 one concise sentence that directly states the action and the output. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy. The core purpose is front-loaded.

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 list tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonable but not complete. It lacks usage guidelines, alternative routing, and any caveats about empty results or error conditions. The presence of sibling tools makes the missing differentiation more noticeable.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents both parameters (repo_slug and workspace) sufficiently. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond restating the repository context. By rule, baseline 3 applies when the schema covers all parameters.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List all branches in a repository.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like list_repositories and list_commits by naming the object type (branches) and scope (repository). The added detail about returning branch names and latest commit hashes further clarifies its purpose.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions that would lead an agent to prefer another tool such as list_commits or get_repository. Usage context is entirely absent.

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