list_branches

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the basic action without disclosing behavioral details such as whether remote branches are included, result ordering, or pagination. This is a minimal description that leaves the agent guessing about the return format and limitations.

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 sentence that is direct and to the point. It contains no redundant or technical filler, making it highly concise and easily parseable.

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 simplicity, the description is functional but lacks important context. It does not mention that the repository is required, how the result is ordered, or whether it includes all branches (e.g., local vs remote). The sibling tool set suggests a broader context, but the description does not address it.

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 schema provides 100% description coverage for the 'repository' parameter with an example ('my-repo'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('branches'), clearly indicating the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'list_tags' and 'list_repositories', which target different entities.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention related tools like 'get_branch_commits' or 'create_branch' that might be used for other branch-related operations.

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