GitMCP

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. 'List all branches' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify output format (e.g., list of branch names, details), pagination, error conditions, or dependencies like requiring git to be installed. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 'List all branches' is extremely concise—three words that directly convey the core action. It's front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero wasted words. This efficiency makes it easy for an agent to parse and understand quickly, earning a top score for conciseness.

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 complexity (a Git operation with one parameter) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'all branches' entails (e.g., local, remote, or both), the return format, or error handling. For a tool interacting with version control, more context is needed to ensure correct usage by an agent.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'path' parameter documented as 'Repository path'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as clarifying path format (e.g., absolute vs. relative) or examples. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to heavily.

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 'List all branches' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('branches'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like git_branch_create or git_branch_switch by focusing on listing rather than creation or switching. However, it doesn't specify the scope (e.g., local vs. remote branches), which prevents a perfect score.

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing an initialized repository), contrast with similar tools like git_status for repository state, or specify use cases. Without any contextual hints, the agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and schema.

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