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 that the output includes the latest commit sha, which is a useful output trait, and the verb 'list' implies a read-only operation. However, it does not mention pagination, the effect of max_results, or any authentication requirements, so more context would improve transparency.

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, direct sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose without redundancy. It could add a sentence about parameters without becoming verbose, but as written it is efficient.

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 description is minimal for a tool with 3 undocumented parameters and no annotations. It does not explain how parameters interact, what the output structure looks like beyond the SHA, or how it differs from list_commits. This is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool with correct arguments.

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 adds no explanation for the three parameters (repo, owner, max_results). It does not clarify that repo/owner identify the repository or that max_results limits the number of returned branches. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 the specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource 'branches' while adding the detail 'with their latest commit sha'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_commits (which lists commit history) and list_directory (which lists files).

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 does not mention when to prefer list_branches over list_commits or get_repository_info, nor any exclusions or context for decision-making.

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