git_references_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention pagination, the effect of the 'limit' or 'include' parameters, potential side effects, or read-only status. This is a significant gap for a tool with no safety hints.

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 short sentence with a domain prefix, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It avoids redundancy, but its brevity comes at the cost of essential context, so it is not perfectly structured for agent use.

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?

The tool is simple and has an output schema, but the description remains incomplete given the 0% parameter coverage and missing annotations. It fails to clarify parameter semantics, pagination, or filtering behavior, leaving significant gaps for an agent to resolve.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (repository_id, limit, include) beyond their names and defaults. The phrase 'branches/tags' hints at repository content but does not clarify parameter meanings or behaviors.

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' with a clear resource 'Git references (branches/tags)' scoped to 'a repository', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like repositories_list or pull_requests_list.

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 implicitly conveys usage by stating the resource and action, but offers no explicit context on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no prerequisites. The use case is implied but not articulated.

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