athena_branch_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full transparency burden. It only reveals that the tool lists states and can filter by three statuses, but does not disclose return format, pagination behavior, whether it is read-only, or any side effects. The tool name 'list' hints at safety, but the description does not explicitly confirm this.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that contains no filler. It efficiently communicates the core action and the optional filter, earning its place without redundancy.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description provides only the minimal action and filter. It lacks context about what branch lifecycle states actually are, what fields are returned, or how limit affects results, leaving gaps for an agent trying to invoke and interpret the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for the 'status' parameter by enumerating the allowed filter values (ACTIVE/HIBERNATED/REVIEW), but it does not explain the 'limit' parameter at all, leaving the agent to infer it controls result count from the schema's min/max bounds.

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's action ('List') and resource ('branch lifecycle states'), and the optional filter values (ACTIVE/HIBERNATED/REVIEW) add specificity. It distinguishes from sibling tools like branch_state or branch_observe through the plural 'List' intent, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 implies usage when you need to enumerate branch lifecycle states, and the optional filter provides context for narrowing results. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over sibling tools like branch_observe or branch_state, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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