git_branch_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the parenthetical '(read-only)' is largely a restatement. The genuinely additive part is disclosing that each branch is reported with its last commit and upstream, but nothing is said about behavior when the path is not a git repo or when no branches exist.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the parameter clarification second. Every clause carries information.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile; the description handles the non-obvious parameter. The only real gap is the undefined 'repo' parameter, minor for a 2-param read-only tool.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain all_branches ('includes remotes'), adding real meaning over the bare boolean, but 'repo' (default '.') is left entirely unexplained — no indication it is a path or that it defaults to the working directory.

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?

Clear specific verb+resource ('List branches') plus what each entry contains (last commit, upstream). It is implicitly distinct from siblings like git_branch_create and git_switch, but never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb 'List'; there is no statement of when to use this versus git_switch, git_log, or git_remote_info, and no prerequisites (e.g., must be inside a repo, what 'repo' defaults to).

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