sonarqube_branches

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful context by naming the returned fields, but says nothing about pagination, whether the main branch is included, or ordering/limits on results.

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?

A single tight sentence with no filler; the action and returned content are front-loaded. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 one-parameter read-only listing tool with complete schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose and result content adequately. Minor gaps remain around result set behavior (pagination, main branch inclusion), but nothing essential to a correct call is missing.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Project key'), so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description's phrase 'a project's branches' reinforces the association but adds no format or identifier syntax beyond what the schema provides.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (a project's branches) and even names the returned fields (quality gate status, last analysis date). This is easily distinguished from siblings like sonarqube_projects or sonarqube_issues without opening a schema.

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?

Usage is only implied: it lists branches for a given project, so an agent can infer it needs a project key. There is no explicit when-to-use, no mention of alternatives, and no note on when branches would be absent (e.g., non-branch-enabled projects).

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