bb_list_branches

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses per-branch output fields, the ahead/behind-default-branch comparison, the 'when available' caveat, and pagination. Auth and rate limits are not mentioned, but the read-only nature is clear.

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 sentences with no filler: purpose is front-loaded, and the branch-content details plus pagination follow directly. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

No output schema or annotations exist, so the description is the only contract. It gives the core return shape and notes pagination, but it omits pagination mechanics such as limit defaults, offset semantics, response envelope, and explicit parameter mappings. Adequate but not fully complete.

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 only 20%, so the description needed to compensate. It maps 'repository' to projectKey/repoSlug and 'Paginated' hints at limit/start, but it does not explain limit/start semantics or the text filter in prose. The text property already has its own schema description.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('branches in a repository'), and enumerates what is returned for each branch. This clearly distinguishes it from singular branch tools like bb_get_branch and from commit-listing siblings.

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 phrase 'List branches in a repository' gives clear usage context for enumerating branches. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a full 5.

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