list_branches

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, has no side effects, or that it returns all branches. This is adequate for a simple list operation but could be more explicit.

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?

Two concise sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the purpose, the second specifies the output and provides actionable usage guidance.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states what it returns and how to use the output. It implicitly returns all branches, but could explicitly state that. Slight gap remains.

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 input schema has no parameters, so the description adds value by explaining the returned slug's purpose (input to list_committees) and providing examples, which goes beyond the schema's empty definition.

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 mountaineers.org branches, provides examples (Seattle, Tacoma, Olympia), specifies the return fields (slug, display name, URL), and indicates how the slug is used for the next tool.

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 tells users to use the slug as input to list_committees, which is a clear usage hint. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it, leaving some ambiguity among the many sibling tools.

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