git_list_refs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that it lists three types of refs, but does not disclose behavior about the limit or filtering semantics. No contradiction exists, and the extra context is modest.

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 sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded and effectively communicates the core purpose without waste.

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?

For a simple list tool, the description provides a minimal viable explanation. However, it omits mention of the filtering capability via 'kind' and the default behavior of listing all refs. Since an output schema exists and parameters are defined in the schema, the description is adequate but not complete for nuanced usage.

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 33% (only repositoryId has a description). The description does not explain the 'kind' enum or 'limit' parameter, and it fails to compensate for the low coverage. The agent would need to infer parameter meanings solely from the schema, which is insufficient for the enum.

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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('local branches, tags, and remote-tracking refs'), clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings like git_list_remotes (remote configurations) and git_list_remote_refs (remote refs). The word 'local' adds scoping that differentiates it.

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, lacks exclusions, and does not mention any prerequisites or context. It is implied that one would use it to list local refs, but no explicit direction is given.

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