list_feature_branches

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about pagination, ordering, permissions (e.g. whether the feature must be in the caller's org), or what a branch record contains. The remaining three lines are pricing marketing text unrelated to tool behavior.

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 first sentence is well-formed and front-loaded, but it is followed by three lines of subscription upsell copy ('Everything in Free, plus calibration...', 'Requires Kiln Pro', an upgrade URL) that add nothing to tool selection or invocation.

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 two-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description should clarify the identifier, return shape, and safety profile; instead it wastes most of its length on promotional content, leaving real gaps.

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%: include_retired has only 'Default: false.' and feature_id has no description at all in the schema. The description's '(optionally including retired)' marginally clarifies include_retired but does not compensate for the undocumented feature_id or explain identifier format.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource (list branches scoped to a feature) and clarifies scope with 'optionally including retired'. However, it gives no differentiation from near-identical siblings such as list_design_branches, list_decoration_preset_branches, or list_feature_releases.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus the many sibling listing tools, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The only usage hint is the parenthetical about retired branches, which is a parameter detail rather than routing guidance.

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