git_list_remote_refs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the behavioral constraint of operating only on anonymous public HTTPS remotes, which is useful beyond the annotations. No contradiction found.

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 redundancy. It is front-loaded with the action ('List') and resource, making it immediately scannable.

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 with rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and constraint. It does not detail limit behavior or the distinction from git_list_refs, but those are not critical given the schema and sibling context. Overall, sufficient for effective selection.

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 low (33%) with only repositoryId described. The description provides no additional parameter semantics, so it fails to compensate for the gaps in the schema. Parameter names (remote, limit) are partially self-explanatory, but not fully.

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 ('refs from a configured anonymous public HTTPS remote'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like git_list_refs (likely local refs) and git_list_remotes (which lists remotes themselves).

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 clear context by specifying that this operates on a 'configured anonymous public HTTPS remote', which implies a prerequisite and excludes other remote types. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so slightly below a 5.

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