repo_list_my_branches_by_repo

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the retrieval action without mentioning permissions needed, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what 'my branches' entails (e.g., branches owned by the current user). This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely involves user-specific data.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the key action and resource.

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 tool's low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It lacks behavioral context (e.g., permissions, pagination) and doesn't clarify the 'my branches' scope, which is crucial for correct usage without annotations or output schema.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters (repositoryId and top). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as clarifying 'my branches' in relation to repositoryId. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Retrieve a list') and resource ('my branches for a given repository Id'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'repo_list_branches_by_repo' (which might list all branches vs. only 'my' branches), missing full sibling distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'repo_list_branches_by_repo' or explain the difference between 'my branches' and other branch listings, leaving usage context unclear.

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