List Branch Restrictions

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds important behavioral details: required authentication scopes and pagination behavior (page_size default 30, max_pages default 1, max recommended 10). No contradiction with annotations.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose sentence, auth requirement, and an Args section listing parameters. It is concise and front-loaded, though the Args formatting uses non-standard parentheses and line breaks, which is slightly less readable than a table.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers all required aspects: purpose, auth, parameter explanations, and pagination behavior. However, it does not mention the sibling tool to retrieve a single restriction.

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 has 0% parameter description coverage, so the description compensates by explaining each parameter: repo_slug, kind (with examples like 'push'), workspace, page_size, max_pages. This adds meaningful usage context beyond the schema's type/default information.

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's action ('List') and resource ('branch restrictions (branch protection rules)') for a repository. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_branch_restriction (singular) and other list tools.

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 useful context about required OAuth scopes and parameter defaults, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_branch_restriction for a single restriction). No when-not or exclusion guidance is given.

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