cloud_list_remote_branches

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the tier/auth prerequisite ('Requires Kiln Pro'), and the verb 'list' implies a non-mutating read, but it says nothing about pagination, empty results, or what happens when design_id is unknown.

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 functional sentence is correctly front-loaded, but roughly half the text is promotional copy about Kiln Pro and an upgrade URL, which does not help an agent decide or invoke. It is not verbose, just padded with material that doesn't earn its place.

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 two-parameter read with no output schema, the description covers purpose and the Pro-tier prerequisite. It lacks any statement about the return shape (e.g., list of branch names) or the meaning of the remote parameter, which an agent calling this tool blind would need.

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 50% and the description only names design_id as the scoping key, adding nothing the schema doesn't already say. The 'remote' parameter, whose schema note is merely 'Default: "default"', is not explained at all in the description, leaving real ambiguity about what a remote identifier is.

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 and resource: list branches on the remote for a given design_id. This is concrete enough to act on, but it never distinguishes itself from close siblings such as cloud_remote_list, cloud_list_remote_releases, or list_design_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 one genuinely useful guideline is the gating condition 'Requires Kiln Pro', which tells the agent when the call will fail. There is no guidance on when to choose this over cloud_remote_list or list_design_branches, so the choice among sibling listing tools is left to inference.

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