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 burden. It discloses the return format (JSON list with branch names and target commit info) and implies a read-only operation. Additional details like pagination or rate limits could enhance transparency.

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 well-structured with a brief summary, clearly labeled args, and a returns section. It is concise and each sentence adds value.

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 simplicity of the tool and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description provides essential info: purpose, parameters, and return structure. It could optionally mention ordering or behavior with many branches, but it is adequate.

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 0%, but the description explains all three parameters: repository, workspace, and limit, including defaults and behavior when omitted (e.g., using current repo/workspace). This adds significant value beyond the schema alone.

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 tool lists branches in a BitBucket repository, including additional details like names and latest commit information. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_branch (single branch) and create_branch (creation).

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 explicitly says 'Use this tool to see available branches in a repository,' providing clear context. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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