list_branches

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description only adds the detail that branches come with their latest commit SHAs. This provides a minor behavioral insight beyond the annotations, but lacks deeper context like pagination, ordering, or any requirements. Score is consistent because annotations cover the safety profile.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core action and outcome. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple read-only nature, the description adequately explains the return content (branch names with SHAs), but since there is no output schema, a bit more detail about the response structure could be beneficial. However, the global context (annotations, sibling tool names) makes the tool's role clear, so a slight gap is acceptable.

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 100%, as both repo and owner have descriptions. The tool description does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 clearly states the tool lists branches of a repository, with the specific addition of including latest commit SHAs. This identifies the action (list), the resource (branches), and the scope (repository), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_repos or list_commits.

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 implies use for retrieving branch information, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_commits or get_file. There is no mention of exclusions or preferred contexts, so guidance is adequate but implicit.

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